Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2020, 03:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: They're hearing things if they heard Trump say that. 

That is the problem with the way Trump weedles around with his comments.  They heard him say that because you can interpret it that way.

[Big Boss]

Neat.

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2020, 03:38 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I didn't watch any of that train wreck so this is a genuine question - was Biden flat out asked to condemn them like the asked Trump?

No, he wasn't asked to. The question posed to Trump was "you have repeatedly criticized the Vice President for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups?"


Biden flat out condemned Antifa less than a month ago, despite Trump's claims that he hasn't. He had also repeatedly condemned non peaceful protestors, saying things like "arsonists and anarchists need to be prosecuted". 

[BigPapaKain]

(10-01-2020, 04:07 PM)Big Boss Wrote:

Neat.

Neat and unsurprising.

[hollodero]

(10-01-2020, 02:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Oh, I know why. It's because they think Trump's a white supremacist himself based on virtually no evidence.

These things are usually hard to "prove". I don't know if he is a white supremacist. I rather feel (without evidence) that he sees their support and their love for him, and that's the only thing that really matters to him. Similar to QAnon. Mr. president, are they dangerous like the FBI and pretty much all experts agree on? - I don't know, I kow they like Trump..."
I do think he is a racist, or say at least someone who is glaringly unaware of his more racist impulses. For that there are quite strong indications, that much I dare to say. He encouraged a crowd to boo a judge for his hispanic name, he told congresswomen of color to go back where they came from, and this is a long and ongoing list.

(10-01-2020, 02:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm going to assume you're not a racist (because you've given no reason to suggest otherwise). Now, imagine people routinely call you a racist by twisting your words and/or taking them out of context. Now, imagine you are asked to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. At some point, you're going to get annoyed and respond in a way that might seem as if you're angry/annoyed/deflecting/etc. 

Yeah, that sounds pretty annoying. But I just do not feel this is an accurate representation of what actually went down.
Imho, his recent condemnation was a weak one, for all the reasons mentioned, and I do not feel he ever gave a stronger one in the past. There's always that reluctance. He always does strongly condemn Antifa though. He calls them bad and dangerous and radical. These are strong words. He never, never ever, used such terms when it came to white supremacists and the like. Never that kind of emphasis and passion. I don't say that to smear Trump, I say that because I really feel this is just demonstrably true.

(10-01-2020, 02:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Richard Spencer came out in favor of Joe Biden. Biden rejected his support. If Spencer keeps campaigning in favor of Biden, does Biden have an obligation to routinely denounce Spencer? 

For one, I would be more content if Trump even would explicitly do that. Rejecting the support of the Proud boys, for example. Just that. He never does that, he never comes out and says he does not want their support.
Answering your question, Biden imho would not need to react to it infinitely. At some point there's good reason to just leave it. I don't think Trump reasonably can be seen as being at that point.

[hollodero]

(10-01-2020, 03:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, he was. He neglected to by saying 'antifa is an idea'. 

That is not quite accurate. That it is an "idea" was not brought up as a response to him being asked to condemn them. It was a reaction to Trump saying someone's got to do something about Antifa and the left.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2020, 06:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: That is not quite accurate. That it is an "idea" was not brought up as a response to him being asked to condemn them. It was a reaction to Trump saying someone's got to do something about Antifa and the left.

You think Biden's comments on Antifa were "strong" enough? 

[Big Boss]

"Rick Santorum says asking Trump to condemn right-wing extremists is unfair because they're his base"

https://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santorum-trump-right-wing-extremists-voting-base-2020-9?fbclid=IwAR1rNJ_HvAR08W5Xz8Y4VD8okRc55wQ2HIr6Mv-V2VMO3ctlIHiDMxIQcdA

[SunsetBengal]

(10-01-2020, 07:51 PM)Big Boss Wrote: "Rick Santorum says asking Trump to condemn right-wing extremists is unfair because they're his base"

https://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santorum-trump-right-wing-extremists-voting-base-2020-9?fbclid=IwAR1rNJ_HvAR08W5Xz8Y4VD8okRc55wQ2HIr6Mv-V2VMO3ctlIHiDMxIQcdA

Santorum might say that, he misses his no-work job and status as a Senator.  I wonder how private sector life and employment is treating him?

[GMDino]

(10-01-2020, 08:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Santorum might say that, he misses his no-work job and status as a Senator.  I wonder how private sector life and employment is treating him?

Santorum is/was/will always be an ass.

He also is/was/always will be a rabid GOP supporter.  

This is probably the first time he has ever said a negative thing about DJT.  That's not good for Trump.

[hollodero]

(10-01-2020, 06:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You think Biden's comments on Antifa were "strong" enough? 

Yes. In the debate, he was not specifically asked to. Biden made quite clear that he opposes all kinds of non-peaceful protests and has so in the past. He condemnded Antifo without hesitation when asked if he would do so in the past. I see no reason to suspect this was all lip service.

With Trump, I see several reasons to do so.

Also, I gave my reasons for that through multiple posts, but unfortunately I am quite certain that you never planned to give any honest consideration to any of these points. I instead await a typical snarky, disdainful response you're almost exclusively giving to anyone with non-conservative perspectives lately. My interest in responding to that will be non-existent.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2020, 02:50 PM)samhain Wrote: Hey, by the way, when your homeboys out in San Luis Obispo got into the shootout last week with that white supremacist guy, did you do all you could to stop it?  Did you tell them how distasteful it was to do violent things to far-right extremists?  I mean, there are people throwing stuff and spray painting at protests.  Who has time to worry when the right gets into shootouts with cops, amirite?  Just leave the poor 2A patriot alone and fight the real enemy, IE anyone on the left!

Wasn't it offensive for the media to characterize him as a Nazi?  I'm curious.

WTF are you talking about?

[Dill]

(10-01-2020, 02:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm going to assume you're not a racist (because you've given no reason to suggest otherwise). Now, imagine people routinely call you a racist by twisting your words and/or taking them out of context. Now, imagine you are asked to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. You are asked again to condemn racism. You do so. At some point, you're going to get annoyed and respond in a way that might seem as if you're angry/annoyed/deflecting/etc. 

Richard Spencer came out in favor of Joe Biden. Biden rejected his support. If Spencer keeps campaigning in favor of Biden, does Biden have an obligation to routinely denounce Spencer? 

I think most people see that Spencer endorsement as a stunt, like his embrace of Zionism. 

Hollo does not make a good analogy. What would be anyone's motivation for "twisting his words"?

AND WHICH WORDS? So far as I know, no one has challenged Hollo to disavow white supremacy because nothing he has said and no policy he has endorsed could be mistaken for such.

But suppose he commented about people from "shithole" countries immigrating to the US, instead of people from Norway. And suppose we learned that he and his father were once fined for refusing to serve black people at their business?

Then someone might ask his views on white supremacy. Imagine he ignores that post, but finally says "I am not a white supremacist" after two others ask him.  Then a fourth poster asks "ok, you are not, but are you AGAINST it?"  To which he does not post an answer.

Then a week later he posts a tweet video of a black man beating up a white woman which is mislabeled as representing a member of BLM. When it turns out the tweet was from a white supremacist site, nothing to do with BLM, Hollo is asked again to explain himself. He says he "didn't know." He won't apologize because no one mentioned race in the tweet and he doesn't have a racist bone in his body.

Next day Hollo posts a tweet of Trump bashing British pm May, in itself unobjectionable, but originating from the account of a British white supremacist. and an hour later someone posts a tweet from @WhiteGenocideTM congratulating Hollo for "keeping it real." To forestall moderator interest, Hollo swears he is not a racist and has no idea who "TM" is. Plus the tweet was about Brexit; no one said "race." Stop twisting his words.

That Friday a cousin pops up in the forum and says that H and his family frequently use the N-word and would not allow blacks to work on their yacht. Hollo calls that "fake news." His word against Hollo's. The cousin is a "loser." There is "a black" in Jungle Noise who has friended him. So he is not racist.

A week later, on an immigration thread, Hollo expresses concern that Mexican "rapists" may be applying for asylum. He supports Trumps' wall, suggesting it will keep out people from all three countries in Mexico. And in the comics forum he posts three antimuslim videos  doctored/captioned by the British neo-fascist party Britain First. The moderators take them down and warn Hollo, who claims he is being unfairly attacked for free speech. You and I ask if he is a white supremacist. He says "NO I AM NOT."   Then posts support for Trump's ban on racial sensitivity training, because he is worried it may lead to "role reversal."

Our actions irritate Bfine, who counts up all the times that H has told us plainly that he is not a racist/white supremacist, claiming it is absurd and unfair that H is asked again and again to condemn racism.  "Why isn't enough enough??"

A day later, a guy who works with Hollo insists he heard H say he feared Minnesota would become a vast refugee camp for Africans . . . . etc. etc. etc.  Someone puts up a post claiming dill is the "real racist" for always putting race questions to Hollo.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-01-2020, 03:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When David Duke annouced his suppprt fr Trump the Donald lied his ass off instead of renouncing the KKK endorsement.

So you know for a FACT that Trump knew who David Duke was when he was asked about him?

(10-01-2020, 03:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When Spencer cames out in favor of Biden his campaign immediately released a statement calling Spencer repugnant and disgusting.

But I am sure you won't see any difference at all.

No surprise, but, you're wrong. There IS a difference between the way Biden and Trump denounced each racist's endorsement. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-01-2020, 04:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is the problem with the way Trump weedles around with his comments.  They heard him say that because you can interpret it that way.

No one heard him say that except people like you who make shit up about other people.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2020, 03:55 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you know for a FACT that Trump knew who David Duke was when he was asked about him?

Yes.  In 2000 Trump refused to run on the Reform Party ticket specifically because David Duke was a member.

It cracks me up when people try to defend Trump by saying "Maybe he is just too stupid to know anything".  

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2020, 03:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No one heard him say that except people like you who make shit up about other people.

No.  The white supremacists who organized the Unite The Right rally heard him loud and clear.  They were thrilled that he said some of them were good people.

Since you obviously know exactly which people he was talking about please enlighten us all.  Who were these "good people" among the crowd chanting "Blood and Soil"? 

[hollodero]

(10-02-2020, 03:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No one heard him say that except people like you who make shit up about other people.

But you have to admit that the Proud Boys demonstrably did hear it the way fred described it. They're very visibly happy, made a logo and everything. Fred is not making this up.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-02-2020, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  In 2000 Trump refused to run on the Reform Party ticket specifically because David Duke was a member.

I did not know that. Hence, why I asked my question. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-02-2020, 04:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  The white supremacists who organized the Unite The Right rally heard him loud and clear.  They were thrilled that he said some of them were good people.

Since you obviously know exactly which people he was talking about please enlighten us all.  Who were these "good people" among the crowd chanting "Blood and Soil"? 

The ones who weren't neo Nazis and white supremacists but also didn't want the statues to be removed.