Instances where Trump got blamed unfairly

[*jason*]

(07-12-2020, 08:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, in your confusion, you're attempting to pass off some imagined stuff as evidence??

The guy's name is Christopher Cantwell... On page 71 of the PnR archives the alt right rally in Virginia thread can be found. Post 437 by GMDino on page 22 of the thread is the first mention of him. Dino addresses the comments about Jared Kushner in post 438... The point of that being that the president who takes even the slightest negative comments about himself and family as the biggest insults in the world made no mention of this Nazi dogging his son in law for being a Jew. If you Google his name and Vice video, it will pop right up... 8/21/17

[SunsetBengal]

(07-12-2020, 08:59 PM)jason Wrote: The guy's name is Christopher Cantwell... On page 71 of the PnR archives the alt right rally in Virginia thread can be found. Post 437 by GMDino on page 22 of the thread is the first mention of him. Dino addresses the comments about Jared Kushner in post 438... The point of that being that the president who takes even the slightest negative comments about himself and family as the biggest insults in the world made no mention of this Nazi dogging his son in law for being a Jew. If you Google his name and Vice video, it will pop right up... 8/21/17

So basically, everyone is arguing over a Canadien who organized a faux white power rally??

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 08:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, in your confusion, you're attempting to pass off some imagined stuff as evidence??

Since I could not find the exact interview I saw before I posted multiple other examples of other white supremacists saying the exact same thing.

So you want to rag on me or address the other quotes I just posted?  In fact I can post a bunch more if you want. 

White supremacists love Trump for "normalizing" their message and giving it credibility in the maonstream.   Nothing gives a white nationalist a hard on like the President of the United States telling a black woman whose family has been in America for generations to go back to HER country.  That is their message in its purist form.

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 09:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So basically, everyone is arguing over a Canadien who organized a faux white power rally??

Stand down fellas I got this:

It's nuanced 

[GMDino]

(07-12-2020, 09:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So basically, everyone is arguing over a Canadien who organized a faux white power rally??

Seems the discussion is over whether the rally was really just a few bad apples coming in or if it was organized by said white supremacists/nazis and the POTUS defended them by throwing them in with the few good people there.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-12-2020, 09:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Seems the discussion is over whether the rally was really just a few bad apples coming in or if it was organized by said white supremacists/nazis and the POTUS defended them by throwing them in with the few good people there.

Hmm, I'm not buying it.  From the video that fredtoadst directed me to search, he definitely strikes me as a Canadian looking to instigate in the US.

[*jason*]

(07-12-2020, 10:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, I'm not buying it.  From the video that fredtoadst directed me to search, he definitely strikes me as a Canadian looking to instigate in the US.

There's a pretty good documentariy on Netflix right now called Alt Right about Spencer and other white supremacist types. According to it, they played a pretty big role in organizing that rally. If I recall it was called the Unite the Right rally.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 09:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So basically, everyone is arguing over a Canadien who organized a faux white power rally??

Bsically "no".  Not even close.

1.  Cantwell is not Canadian. (but what the hell difference does it make?)

2.  The white power rally was not "faux".  It was actually the largest white power demonstyration in a generation.

3.  And we are not arguing about one single rally.  Instead we are discussing the fact that white supremacist love Donald Trump because he has brought them into the mainstream.  His support gives them legitimacy.  

[BmorePat87]

(07-10-2020, 10:08 AM)hollodero Wrote: - Blaming him for the divided country
...not to create a wrong impression, Trump is a very divisive figure and strives for that division. But the division is not a product of Trump, Trump is a product of the division. The notion that the country unifies again once Trump is out of office imho is naive.

He was the biggest proponent of "Obama was not born in the US" and helped lead a lot of the racist discourse against him. He certainly was a big player in dividing the country during Obama's presidency, but I do think it's fair to describe him more as the result of the division than the divider itself. 

[Dill]

Hollo, don't let your desire to be fair cloud judgment and start you reaching, and overreaching, for "balance" or whatever.

(07-10-2020, 10:08 AM)hollodero Wrote: Since I often make lists of imho legit and objectifiable reasons to blame or attack Trump, let me try to proof a little fairness and look for instances where indeed accusations against Trump were over the top or unfair. These instances seem rare to me, but they sure do exist.
- The so-called "Peepee-tape"
...there actually is little to back up that accusation, that still gets mentioned plenty. It's basically just within the unverified portions of the Steele dossier and there seems to be no credible alternative source to back that story up.
The reasons for that thread are the following: For one, I was under the impression that unfair accusations against Trump are deemed non-existent;

I don't think this "pee pee" tape counts as an "unfair accusation."  Because the golden shower story was part of the Steele Dossier, it was reported as such. I am not aware of any news agency or reporter who then began treating the story as verified. People who discuss Trump's immoral character don't refer to that story the way they refer to his cheating on his wives and the dozens of sexual assault accusations.

Mere reporting is not accusation. And I don't think this gets "mentioned plenty" other than by Trump reporters continually reminding their supporters of the Dossier and calling the story "slander."

It is not that unfair accusations against Trump are deemed non-existent; it's that there is push back against the claim that, sure, SOME of the accusations against Trump are true, but lots of them aren't. Trump supporters/defenders respond as if there is just so much noise out there it is hard to tell what is really true or not, as if false accusations came a dozen a day and explain the high volume of negative press.

I.e., push back against a red herring.

(07-10-2020, 10:08 AM)hollodero Wrote: - People who diagnose Trump's mental health
...yeah I think he is a narcissist and that it's possibly pathological, as is his lieing. Still I have an issue with some news segments that take this line of thinking way too far. Not just once have I heard some expert musing on how he has the mindset of Hitler or Stalin. These aren't diagnosis (which are hard to come by and it's probably unethical to diagnose someone from his appearances in public alone), these are slanders.

Two issues here:

1. You may be referring to the "Goldwater rule" which mental health professionals have adopted--don't diagnose politicians who are not your patient. Trump has indeed pushed a number of mental health professionals over the line--including his niece Mary--because his behavior checks all the boxes for "malignant narcisist." ALL THE BOXES, Hollo. That has moved some to sound a warning. E.g., The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. in which 27 psychiatrists and psychologists discuss the G rule, their responsibility as professionals, and the national interest. https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-Donald-Trump-Psychiatrists/dp/1250179459.

2. Today there is growing scholarship on the behavior of autocrats, not just Stalin and Hitler, and on their interaction with the institutions and political norms which pre-existed them.  Here again, Trump's behavior aligns with that of dictators--attacking the free press, using his power and prerogatives to reward cronies, punish whistleblowers, repress dissent and hamper or stop investigations into his own behavior, replacing honest and competent counselors with incompetent yes men, challenging the rule of law across a number of fronts, converting a democratic, representative party to a regime party, pushing illiberal policy goals (including willingness to use the US military against US citizens, desire to "take their oil"), etc. People who publicly discuss this autocratic behavior are not thereby automatically guilty of "slander."

Not clear what you mean by "taking this line of thinking too far."  The aforementioned professionals have not only a right but an obligation to join public discourse about the competency of a president, especially when they bring their expertise to bear on issues like competence and judgment.

(07-10-2020, 10:08 AM)hollodero Wrote: - Blaming him for the divided country
...not to create a wrong impression, Trump is a very divisive figure and strives for that division. But the division is not a product of Trump, Trump is a product of the division. The notion that the country unifies again once Trump is out of office imho is naive.

Not sure anyone argues that Trump STARTED it, as a claim there was no division before him.

He is blamed for self-consciously adopting division as a tactic. And when he is no longer president, we can hope that his replacement will once again proclaim s/he is president of "all" the people, and not constantly appeal to his base at the exclusion of others.  There will still be people who dislike that new president and protest, so sure, the country will remain "divided." The point is that the new C-in-C will likely be trying to heal divisions and appeal to the whole country.  Not "naive" to expect what every president except Trump has done.

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2020, 05:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If you truly stand by those statements, I'd like to see what you feel is the reason for the division among Americans right now, and if DJT is not the cause, then who is?

Two main reasons for the country becoming so divided.

First, even though the wealthy elite control 90% of the wealth they still only control 5% of the vote.  Some how they have to get a large portion of the struggling middle class to vote for their interests.  They do this by demonizing the poor.  And it has worked quite well.  90% of the new wealth created in the United States over the last 40 years has gone to wealthiest 5%, yet they have convinced many in the middle class that they are being robbed by poor immigrants and people on welfare.  The wealthy have created class warfare in order to get the middle class to fight for the rich instead of themselves.

Second, most congressional districts have been gerrymandered so that one party is in complete control.  In these districts it is almost impossible for a moderate to get elected.  When all the candidates who have a chance of winning are from the same party then the most etreme candidate often wins.  A moderate is cast as a "sympathetic to the other side".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-12-2020, 08:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bfine is correct.

Even though the white supremacist generally celebrate Trump, many don't think Trump goes far enough.  They like that he is normalizing their message, but many wish he would go farther.

Bfine is correct, but not for the reason you just advanced.  Bfine is correct because they are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of racists in the US who are not white who would never vote for Trump.  News flash, white people do not have anything close to a monopoly on racism and never have.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2020, 05:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bfine is correct, but not for the reason you just advanced.  Bfine is correct because they are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of racists in the US who are not white who would never vote for Trump.  News flash, white people do not have anything close to a monopoly on racism and never have.

I propose that while we could debate what "racism" you are talking about the vast majority of WHITE racists support Trump and think he is on "their" side and want him to go further as Fred said.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2020, 05:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bfine is correct, but not for the reason you just advanced.  Bfine is correct because they are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of racists in the US who are not white who would never vote for Trump.  News flash, white people do not have anything close to a monopoly on racism and never have.

This is 100% correct.

I meant all white racists.  That was the context of the discussion between Bfine, Jason, and myself about the events at Charlottesville.  But if you pull my comment out of that context it should be clarified by explaining that I was just talkin g about white racists.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-13-2020, 06:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: I propose that while we could debate what "racism"

You could propose anything, but racism is clearly defined.

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Quote:you are talking about the vast majority of WHITE racists support Trump and think he is on "their" side and want him to go further as Fred said.

I wasn't talking about it at all.  I was responding to Fred's statement, which he has, with my compliments, clarified.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-13-2020, 05:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Two main reasons for the country becoming so divided.

First, even though the wealthy elite control 90% of the wealth they still only control 5% of the vote.  Some how they have to get a large portion of the struggling middle class to vote for their interests.  They do this by demonizing the poor.  And it has worked quite well.  90% of the new wealth created in the United States over the last 40 years has gone to wealthiest 5%, yet they have convinced many in the middle class that they are being robbed by poor immigrants and people on welfare.  The wealthy have created class warfare in order to get the middle class to fight for the rich instead of themselves.

Second, most congressional districts have been gerrymandered so that one party is in complete control.  In these districts it is almost impossible for a moderate to get elected.  When all the candidates who have a chance of winning are from the same party then the most etreme candidate often wins.  A moderate is cast as a "sympathetic to the other side".

I can't find anything in this post I disagree with.  I would add that wedge issues, e.g. abortion, gun control, have gained even more importance as a means to drive voters to the polls.  Consequently, the heat around them has only intensified, which leads to further division.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2020, 05:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bfine is correct, but not for the reason you just advanced.  Bfine is correct because they are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of racists in the US who are not white who would never vote for Trump.  News flash, white people do not have anything close to a monopoly on racism and never have.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2020, 06:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't find anything in this post I disagree with.  I would add that wedge issues, e.g. abortion, gun control, have gained even more importance as a means to drive voters to the polls.  Consequently, the heat around them has only intensified, which leads to further division.

So I'm in agreement on this little thread of you agreeing with Fred. I just want to add one more thing to it: those in power will never definitively resolve these wedge issues even though they could. Some of them don't even truly believe in the position of their party on them. But, these wedge issues drive voters to the polls and get them votes. The issues are too valuable as unresolved because of their use in campaigns.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2020, 08:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So I'm in agreement on this little thread of you agreeing with Fred. I just want to add one more thing to it: those in power will never definitively resolve these wedge issues even though they could.

Abortion is the only issue that I don't think they could come to agreement on.  There just is no middle ground.

Almost all the other wedge issues have some reasonabvle middle ground, but the extremists won't compromise even for a good law that would solve a lot of problems.  Their leaders have them convinced that any compromise will lead to complete loss and destruction.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2020, 06:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You could propose anything, but racism is clearly defined.

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism



I wasn't talking about it at all.  I was responding to Fred's statement, which he has, with my compliments, clarified.

Right, sorry.  I meant you bringing up "racists" that aren't white had nothing to do with Fred saying that white racists love Trump.

Which Fred verified:

Quote:This is 100% correct.


I meant all white racists.  That was the context of the discussion between Bfine, Jason, and myself about the events at Charlottesville.  But if you pull my comment out of that context it should be clarified by explaining that I was just talkin g about white racists.

Which is why  I said what kind of racism.