Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[*PhilHos*]

(09-30-2020, 11:57 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well, I was summarizing. What he said was:

"Sure, I'm willing to but I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing. I'm willing to do anything. I want to see peace"


Everything after that but is what he actually believes.

So he's willing to do anything and wants to see peace. 

[GMDino]

(09-30-2020, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It was a "clumsy gaff" and those are OK as I've been told. He clearly asked who do you want me to condemn and I'll do it. it appears he said Stand down instead of stand by. But jhe clearly agreed to condemn them.

Quote:Chris Wallace: (41:33)
You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left wing extremist groups. But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.


President Donald J. Trump: (41:57)
Sure, I’m will to do that.

Chris Wallace: (41:59)
Are you prepared specifically to do it.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:00)
I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing not from the right wing.

Chris Wallace: (42:04)
But what are you saying?

President Donald J. Trump: (42:06)
I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace.

Chris Wallace: (42:08)
Well, do it, sir.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:09)
Say it, do it say it.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:10)
What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead who do you want me to condemn.

Chris Wallace: (42:14)
White supremacist and right-wing militia.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:18)
Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem this is a left wing.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:28)
He’s own FBI Director said unlike white supremacist, Antifa is an idea not an organization-

President Donald J. Trump: (42:35)
Oh you got to be kidding me.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:36)
… not a militia. That’s what his FBI Director said.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:41)
Well, then you know what, he’s wrong.

1) Easy to not have a gaffe if you just simply say I condemn their actions without trying to CYA in case they want to vote for you.

2) Isn't amazing that everyone in his own administration that disagrees with him is wrong?  

[GMDino]

(09-30-2020, 12:06 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So he's willing to do anything and wants to see peace. 

Those are just words.  Some have said we must not listen to his words but what is in his heart.  Others have said we must see his actions.

[CJD]

(09-30-2020, 12:06 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So he's willing to do anything and wants to see peace. 

He sure is. He's willing to violate as many constitutional rights as possible to ensure "peace" 

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 12:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: 1) Easy to not have a gaffe if you just simply say I condemn their actions without trying to CYA in case they want to vote for you.

2) Isn't amazing that everyone in his own administration that disagrees with him is wrong?  

Why not just stop at his answer at 41:57

[masonbengals fan]

(09-30-2020, 12:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why not just stop at his answer at 41:57

Because that doesn't fit the narrative.

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 12:33 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Because that doesn't fit the narrative.

I see Trump clearly agreeing condemn White Supremacists and see Biden excusing Antifia. Why didn't Biden condemn Antifa?But it's all in the eye of the beholder. 

[Dill]

(09-30-2020, 12:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I see Trump clearly agreeing condemn White Supremacists and see Biden excusing Antifia. Why didn't Biden condemn Antifa?But it's all in the eye of the beholder. 

If I am a president accused of sympathy for white supremacists, and I am still trying to put behind me an incident in which I “misspoke” about good people on both sides of a racial conflict, 

and I am preparing for a nationally televised debate in which there is a 90% chance I’ll be asked to clarify my stance, what is the best prep for that?

If I want people to understand that I unreservedly DENOUNCE white supremacy in all its forms, no ifs ands and buts, then how do I prepare to take advantage of that coming debate opportunity? 

Do I

1.       Have a brief speech ready to go, like this “I say right now that I ABSOLUTELY denounce white supremacy in all its forms—that includes the Klan, Nazis, Christian identitarians, Proud Boys, all of them. If anyone in my administration expresses support or sympathy for these groups, he’s gone. Your disgusting ideology has no place in America. NO PLACE!” And I look into the camera and point my finger at it as I speak, in an angry and elevated tone.
 
2.       Or do I wing it sort of,  “Sure ‘I do’ denounce them. If people want me to.  Name some groups? Oh Proud Boys? Ok Stand BACK and Stand BY! There. Happy now? We need to do something about ANTIFA! And stop racial sensitivity training.“
 
If I do choose 2, and people continue to question my sincerity, then really, how effective will it be if my supporters quote that “I do” as proof I have "clearly" denounced white supremacy?

Who is really “not hearing what the president says”? The people who focus on the “I do” or those who focus on the whole bumbling indecisive half-hearted “Well ok if you really want me to name some and maybe I will sort of, or put them on ‘stand by’ at least, but they're not the real problem because ANTIFA is coming for you.”

What about those options 1 and 2--six of one and half dozen of the other? Haters gonna hate anyway? If you are a Proud Boy or or a relative of George Floyd, which works best for you, or is that all in "the eye of the beholder"?

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 12:41 PM)Dill Wrote: If I am a president accused of sympathy for white supremacists, and I am still trying to put behind me an incident in which I “misspoke” about good people on both sides of a racial conflict, 

and I am preparing for a nationally televised debate in which there is a 90% chance I’ll be asked to clarify my stance, what is the best prep for that?

If I want people to understand that I unreservedly DENOUNCE white supremacy in all its forms, no ifs ands and buts, then how do I prepare to take advantage of that coming opportunity? 

Do I

1.       Have a brief speech ready to go, like this “I say right now that I ABSOLUTELY denounce white supremacy in all its forms—that includes the Klan, Nazis, Christian identitarians, Proud Boys, all of them. If anyone in my administration expresses support or sympathy for these groups, he’s gone. Your disgusting ideology has no place in America. NO PLACE!” And I look into the camera and point my finger at it as I speak, in an angry and elevated tone.
 
2.       Or do I wing it sort of,  “Sure ‘I do’ denounce them. If people want me to.  Name some groups? Oh Proud Boys? Ok Stand BACK and Stand BY! There. Happy now? We need to do something about ANTIFA! And stop racial sensitivity training.“
 
If I do choose 2, and people continue to question my sincerity, then really, how effective will it be if my supporters quote that “I do” as proof I have "clearly" denounced white supremacy?

Who is really “not hearing what the president says”? The people who focus on the “I do” or those who focus on the whole bumbling indecisive half-hearted “Well ok if you really want me to name some and maybe I will sort of, or put them on ‘stand by’ at least.”

What about those options 1 and 2--six of one and half dozen of the other? If you are a Proud Boy or or a relative of George Floyd, which works best for you, or is that all in "the eye of the beholder"?

This is not plain enough?
"But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland."

"Sure, I’m will to do that. "



Seems like a tough crowd.

[Big Boss]

Yep. Trump's message was clear.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08KH3KNF8/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=proud+boys+stand+back&qid=1601481426&sr=8-3

[Dill]

(09-30-2020, 12:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is not plain enough?
"But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland."

"Sure, I’m will to do that. "

Seems like a tough crowd.

No, not plain enough if people have to press you to take a stand and then you add "Proud Boys stand by" before pivoting immediately to "the real problem" ANTIFA.  

And if you had a chance to deliver a prepared and strongly worded statement but didn't bother to prepare and deploy one and left it up to Biden and the moderator to decide what exactly to denounce then no. certainly not.

If the denunciation was so "plain" then why are the Proud Boys rallying around it, incorporating it into their Brand?


(thanks Big Boss!)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-30-2020, 11:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I understand why you would believe this if you live in a bubble of far right media, but the reality is it's not nearly as pervasive as the Hodge Twins or Tucker want you to think it is.

This is a patently unfair statement to make.  Whether it's "pervasive" or not, the undeniable fact is that far left groups have been engaging in routine acts or looting, arson, and rioting over the past several months.  Attempts to deflect that away to other groups is disingenuous at best.

Quote:It also goes against the FBI and DHS who say that the vast, vast majority of domestic terrorism is from right wing groups. 

Only because they don't count rioting, looting and arson as domestic terror.  Also, the study, which is mischaracterized on this board as a matter of routine, states that far right groups are the greater "lethal threat".  This is rather key as it omits slews of lesser crimes, you know the types of crimes engaged in on a daily basis in a city like Portland.  Even this "lethal threat" accounts for far less deaths per year, at its peak, than occurs in any given week in the city of Chicago.  Does this mean we should be unconcerned by far right domestic terrorism?  Absolutely not.  It also does not mean that far right domestic terrorism means we should ignore far left violence and criminal conduct, especially when such conduct is far more frequent of late.  Sunset is absolutely correct and answering him with "whatabout" is poor form.

Quote:But even if that were true, it's not an excuse to refuse to denounce white supremacy. You don't tell white supremacists to be on "stand by" to fight the anti-racist protestors.

Completely agreed, although the term "white supremacist" gets thrown around with an ease that I find disturbing.

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 01:02 PM)Dill Wrote: No, not plain enough if people have to press you to take a stand and then you add "Proud Boys stand by" before pivoting immediately to "the real problem" ANTIFA.  

And if you had a chance to deliver a prepared and strongly worded statement but didn't bother to prepare and deploy one and left it up to Biden and the moderator to decide what exactly to denounce then no. certainly not.

If the denunciation was so "plain" then why are the Proud Boys rallying around it, incorporating it into their Brand?


(thanks Big Boss!)

As I said seems like I tough crowd. he was asked and he said yes. But that doesn't fit the narrative so folks have to go with a misspeak of stand by instead of stand down. 

I understand why both the Libs and the Proud Boys are doing it. But folks that are doing it give 2 shits about the truth. 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(09-30-2020, 01:02 PM)Dill Wrote: No, not plain enough if people have to press you to take a stand and then you add "Proud Boys stand by" before pivoting immediately to "the real problem" ANTIFA.  

And if you had a chance to deliver a prepared and strongly worded statement but didn't bother to prepare and deploy one and left it up to Biden and the moderator to decide what exactly to denounce then no. certainly not.

If the denunciation was so "plain" then why are the Proud Boys rallying around it, incorporating it into their Brand?


(thanks Big Boss!)

lol lcicked on that link, it's been taken down already.

[Dill]

(09-30-2020, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said seems like I tough crowd. he was asked and he said yes. But that doesn't fit the narrative so folks have to go with a misspeak of stand by instead of stand down. 

I understand why both the Libs and the Proud Boys are doing it. But folks that are doing it give 2 shits about the truth. 

Yow! Now THAT is a "mispeak" too.   "Stand down" would be pretty weak too. And NOT a denunciation.

But he had TWO shots at saying that--"Stand back" is another misspeak? 

Double misspeak or just doublespeak?

This is not weak: "White supremacy is DISGUSTING and anti-American in all of its forms, and I'll fire anyone in my administration who sympathizes." So why not say that? Not just "Sure, ok." 

The "narrative" is that Trump has chronic difficulty denouncing white supremacy, just as he has difficulty denouncing Qanon or any group of supporters. 

People who "give 2 shits about the truth" aren't the ones who ignore how Trump himself creates this narrative in moments like last night's.

[BmorePat87]

(09-30-2020, 01:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a patently unfair statement to make.  Whether it's "pervasive" or not, the undeniable fact is that far left groups have been engaging in routine acts or looting, arson, and rioting over the past several months.  Attempts to deflect that away to other groups is disingenuous at best.



Only because they don't count rioting, looting and arson as domestic terror.  Also, the study, which is mischaracterized on this board as a matter of routine, states that far right groups are the greater "lethal threat".  This is rather key as it omits slews of lesser crimes, you know the types of crimes engaged in on a daily basis in a city like Portland.  Even this "lethal threat" accounts for far less deaths per year, at its peak, than occurs in any given week in the city of Chicago.  Does this mean we should be unconcerned by far right domestic terrorism?  Absolutely not.  It also does not mean that far right domestic terrorism means we should ignore far left violence and criminal conduct, especially when such conduct is far more frequent of late.  Sunset is absolutely correct and answering him with "whatabout" is poor form.



Completely agreed, although the term "white supremacist" gets thrown around with an ease that I find disturbing.

I take issue with characterizing that as whataboutism as I directed him back to the topic: white supremacists. He brought up left wing violence as an excuse to not condemn right wing violence. I do not think that what he did was whataboutism either, though I made it clear I disagreed with it being used as an excuse to not condemn white supremacists.

I think pointing to non ideological crime may fall under the same category but I think going down that road gets away from the topic at hand.

To your comment at the end, I agree but I also think it doesn't get thrown around enough regarding some groups. Proud Boys isn't a white supremacist group, they're certainly a western nationalist group though. That said, they have a lot of ties and crossover with actual supremacist groups, and we shouldn't discount the role that the ideology plays in that community as a whole. A lot of dishonesty went into trying to characterize the Unite the Right rally as not being a White supremacist event, which it absolutely was. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 01:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Yow! Now THAT is a "mispeak" too.   

"Stand down" would be pretty weak too. But he had two shots at saying that--"Stand back" is another misspeak? 

Double misspeak or just doublespeak?

This is not weak: "White supremacy is DISGUSTING and anti-American in all of its forms, and I'll fire anyone in my administration who sympathizes." So why not say that? Not just "Sure, ok." 

The "narrative" is that Trump has chronic difficulty denouncing white supremacy, just as he has difficulty denouncing Qanon or any group of supporters. 

People who "give 2 shits about the truth" aren't the ones who ignore how Trump himself creates this narrative in moments like last night's.

Well the moderator used stand down in his original question. He was asked to denounce and he did. It cannot get any simpler than that. The title of this thread is "fake news". He clearly denounced them when asked. 

But as my boy Dan Crenshaw said:

Is the answer seeking the truth or making Trump look bad; because they're 2 completely different things.

Trump looked like a buffoon last night and IMO clearly lost the debate and most likely the White House, but as Biden says: C'Mon Man

[KillerGoose]

(09-30-2020, 12:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is not plain enough?
"But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland."

"Sure, I’m will to do that. "



Seems like a tough crowd.

I think the thing is that it was a pretty weak answer for people who believe he is racist. If someone doesn’t think he is racist, then his answer seems fine. Sure, he said he would do it. However, if someone has the belief he is racist or they are on the fence about him being racist, it was a really weak answer that didn’t do anything to dispel that notion and has added fuel to that fire. I really think he missed an opportunity there to really kill that idea.

The average voter likely isn’t going to know that he has called racism evil and condemned groups like this before, and he had a softball of an opportunity to really nail it home before the election, on national TV. He just missed it, and he is needing help right now.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-30-2020, 12:41 PM)Dill Wrote: If I am a president accused of sympathy for white supremacists, and I am still trying to put behind me an incident in which I “misspoke” about good people on both sides of a racial conflict, 

Trump didn't misspeak. His words were twisted into something that he didn't say.

Quote: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo — and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. …

It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

Anyone that hears or reads that and thinks he's saying there were fine white supremacists is clearly making shit up.

[GMDino]

(09-30-2020, 12:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why not just stop at his answer at 41:57

Because that wasn't the entire exchange.

"Sure I'll do it" isn't actually saying it...it's saying he will.  

And then he didn't.

I realize the right thinks it's nitpicking and even you have admitted that Trump lost the debate last night.

It's just another example of how Trump is focused on what he thinks will get him a win versus being able to answer an easy question.  Hell, he didn't have to mean it.  He's a liar and a conman....just not a very smart one I guess.