Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[Millhouse]

The problem with how Trump responded is how shallow it was.

[GMDino]

To me the disconnect between those saying Trump answered the question and those who say he didn't it what question he answered.

Quote:Chris Wallace: 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: Sure, I’m will to do that.

If I ask my son if if he's going to brush his teeth before bed and he says he is "willing" to do that it is not the same as him actually doing that.

Quote:Chris Wallace: Are you prepared specifically to do it.


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

Chris Wallace: But what are you saying?

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

Chris Wallace: Well, do it, sir.

Vice President Joe Biden: Say it, do it say it.

President Donald J. Trump: 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: White supremacist and right-wing militia.

President Donald J. Trump: 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.

So I would follow up with "did you brush your teeth" and if he says "I want my toothbrush to be ready in the morning but the real problem is that you didn't wash your face" he didn't do what he said he was "willing" to do.

Also interesting is that Wallace never told him which group and Trump went straight to the Proud Boys.  I wonder what part of his "debate prep" led him to that.

[hollodero]

(09-30-2020, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: et tu brute

Quit adding words to try and support your point. Where have I said Strong Condemnation? This place has jumped the shark. We can no longer discuss issues in earnest. 

Dude. You heavily implied that Trump's answer was "fore some reason" not good enough "for many"... how typical of them, right? When you take this stance with the attitude you took, you don't get to be offended when being "accused" of talking about a perfectly fine, hence strong condemnation.

If it were not a strong condemnation, there'd be no reason for you to wonder why it's not good enough for many. Because in that case it would have been weak, and many might reasonably feel that weak is not good enough. So nope, I respectfully reject your attempt at shaming me. Your whole point bites itself in the behind.

Also, Caesar: If you do not see a strong condemnation (the part you took issue with), why don't you just say so. It might even help you understand where other people are actually coming from. Why respond like you did? Earnestly, Gaius Julius, I have no issue with disagreement, but some issue with this particular kind of response.

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 10:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dude. You heavily implied that Trump's answer was "fore some reason" not good enough "for many"... how typical of them, right? When you take this stance with the attitude you took, you don't get to be offended when being "accused" of talking about a perfectly fine, hence strong condemnation.

If it were not a strong condemnation, there'd be no reason for you to wonder why it's not good enough for many. Because in that case it would have been weak, and many might reasonably feel that weak is not good enough. So nope, I respectfully reject your attempt at shaming me. Your whole point bites itself in the behind.

Also, Caesar: If you do not see a strong condemnation (the part you took issue with), why don't you just say so. It might even help you understand where other people are actually coming from. Why respond like you did? Earnestly, Gaius Julius, I have no issue with disagreement, but some issue with this particular kind of response.

I thought I explained that when I described the condemnation simple and plain. 

But yeah, a simple condemnation was not good enough for many. I didn't imply that, I plainly stated it. 

Reject all you want, but that doesn't mean you didn't make up shit I said. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-30-2020, 09:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.

I have plenty more if you want to see them

"A video uploaded to social media shows the Proud Boys knocking a BLM protester to the ground and using homophobic slurs before being handcuffed by police." 



https://www.dailydot.com/debug/proud-boys-attack-black-lives-matter-protester-video/



The problem here is clear.  You have no idea what you are talking about because you only get your information from the right wing echo chamber.   Any one who gets any information from other news sources has heard of this stuff yet you admit that you have never even heard anything about any of this.


You are welcome for the education.  Would you like some more?

Sure.  I read many left leaning sources, but will freely admit to never hearing of the "daily dot".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-30-2020, 09:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why don't you deny it and I will.

Oooo, conditions. How spicy!

Quote:Just keep admitting "I have never heard any of this" an I will keep educating you.

Yes, "educate me", daddy.   

[hollodero]

(09-30-2020, 10:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought I explained that when I described the condemnation simple and plain. 

But yeah, a simple condemnation was not good enough for many. I didn't imply that, I plainly stated it. 

Reject all you want, but that doesn't mean you didn't make up shit I said. 

OK, have it your way then.

So now it's about the exact degree of strongness of Trump's condemnation you clearly attributed to it. It was not so strong that anyone could possibly claim you meant it was actually a "strong" condemnation; yet also not so weak that you could possibly unironically understand why it was not good enough for many. It was just in the sweet spot in between and I really should have caught on to that.

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 10:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, have it your way then.

So now it's about the exact degree of strongness of Trump's condemnation you clearly attributed to it. It was not so strong that anyone could possibly claim you meant it was actually a "strong" condemnation; yet also not so weak that you could possibly unironically understand why it was not good enough for many. It was just in the sweet spot in between and I really should have caught on to that.

Sure.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-30-2020, 08:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That doesn't answer my question, but somehow I think the answer doesn't actually matter to you. 

Actually, my answer doesn’t matter because I’m not the one who condemned a specific group which may or may not be a white supremacist group after soliciting names of groups to condemn instead of just condemning white supremacy in general. Direct your question to the person who condemned them for being a white supremacy group.

[Millhouse]

One thing I don't understand is somehow equating condeming Antifa with white supremacists. Sure I wish Biden would come out and condemn them, they are pieces of ***t. But in the grand scheme of humanity, white supremecists are the worst of the worst. They are responsible for slavery going back to at least the 1400s. The complete domination of other peoples not just here for the hundred years after the Civil War, but in places around the world like South Africa. The annihaliton of countless millions in the 1930s and 40s by the Nazis.

The comparable damage done by both is not even in the same realm of discussion.

[BmorePat87]

(09-30-2020, 10:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: To me the disconnect between those saying Trump answered the question and those who say he didn't it what question he answered.



If I ask my son if if he's going to brush his teeth before bed and he says he is "willing" to do that it is not the same as him actually doing that.



So I would follow up with "did you brush your teeth" and if he says "I want my toothbrush to be ready in the morning but the real problem is that you didn't wash your face" he didn't do what he said he was "willing" to do.

Also interesting is that Wallace never told him which group and Trump went straight to the Proud Boys.  I wonder what part of his "debate prep" led him to that.

It's like your wife saying she's willing to try a threesome. 

I pointed this out to Hollo earlier. Biden said Proud Boys. That's why Trump mentioned them. 

[GMDino]

Trump said they are wrong. 

Yesterday as Trump refused to condemn far-right violence, the FBI quietly issued a warning about the threat of far-right extremists, per intel report leaked to me.

It identifies the period between presidential election and inauguration as a "flashpoint"https://t.co/A1AdYn9tED pic.twitter.com/IzLYTmBnXf

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) October 1, 2020

 

[Big Boss]

Trump knows better than our intelligence officers.

[masonbengals fan]

Why isn't Biden under the same scrutiny ?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/fact-check-photo-shows-biden-with-byrd-who-once-had-ties-to-kkk-but-wasn-t-a-grand-wizard/ar-BB15tjQQ

Biden described this man as a mentor, a guide & a friend. No, Byrd wasn't a grand wizard just an exalted cyclops. Which from what I can read is still a leader in the damn KKK.
So again why isn't he under the same scrutiny? Repeatedly makes racial gaffes with little to no blowback from the same people that condemn Trump.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2020, 10:20 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Why isn't Biden under the same scrutiny ?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/fact-check-photo-shows-biden-with-byrd-who-once-had-ties-to-kkk-but-wasn-t-a-grand-wizard/ar-BB15tjQQ

Biden described this man as a mentor, a guide & a friend. No, Byrd wasn't a grand wizard just an exalted cyclops.  Which from what I can read is still a leader in the damn KKK.
So again why isn't he under the same scrutiny? Repeatedly makes racial gaffes with little to no blowback from the same people that condemn Trump.

What if Biden says he doesn't even know him and he just take pictures with lots of people? 

[masonbengals fan]

Still waiting...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-30-2020, 11:57 PM)Millhouse Wrote: One thing I don't understand is somehow equating condeming Antifa with white supremacists. Sure I wish Biden would come out and condemn them, they are pieces of ***t. But in the grand scheme of humanity, white supremecists are the worst of the worst. They are responsible for slavery going back to at least the 1400s. The complete domination of other peoples not just here for the hundred years after the Civil War, but in places around the world like South Africa. The annihaliton of countless millions in the 1930s and 40s by the Nazis.

The comparable damage done by both is not even in the same realm of discussion.

To play devil's advocate, many, if not most, members of antifa identify as communist, which is responsible for more human deaths than everything you've listed combined.  I'm totally fine with saying both antifa and the far right should be totally disavowed and treated with disdain by all normal thinking people.  

[BigPapaKain]

(10-01-2020, 10:20 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Why isn't Biden under the same scrutiny ?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/fact-check-photo-shows-biden-with-byrd-who-once-had-ties-to-kkk-but-wasn-t-a-grand-wizard/ar-BB15tjQQ

Biden described this man as a mentor, a guide & a friend. No, Byrd wasn't a grand wizard just an exalted cyclops.  Which from what I can read is still a leader in the damn KKK.
So again why isn't he under the same scrutiny? Repeatedly makes racial gaffes with little to no blowback from the same people that condemn Trump.

Byrd denounced his being a part of the KKK and voted for the Civil Rights Act. He didn't hide that he was an exalted cyclops but says he regretted it. That's all in that article of yours.

There's a difference between knowing and respecting someone who made mistakes and worked to fix them and actively endorsing a hate group.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2020, 11:16 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Byrd denounced his being a part of the KKK and voted for the Civil Rights Act. He didn't hide that he was an exalted cyclops but says he regretted it. That's all in that article of yours.

There's a difference between knowing and respecting someone who made mistakes and worked to fix them and actively endorsing a hate group.

I'm sure Trump is "willing" to do that.

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2020, 10:20 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Why isn't Biden under the same scrutiny ?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/fact-check-photo-shows-biden-with-byrd-who-once-had-ties-to-kkk-but-wasn-t-a-grand-wizard/ar-BB15tjQQ

Biden described this man as a mentor, a guide & a friend. No, Byrd wasn't a grand wizard just an exalted cyclops.  Which from what I can read is still a leader in the damn KKK.
So again why isn't he under the same scrutiny? Repeatedly makes racial gaffes with little to no blowback from the same people that condemn Trump.

Because Byrd condemned his own past and spent his final decades in the Senate working to promote civil rights. 

Byrd spent less than 10 years in the KKK and nearly 50 in the Senate. He went from filibustering the Civil Rights Act in the 60's to having a 100% voting record with the NAACP. 

He was by no means perfect, even late in life, but he made up for his mistakes and owned it.