Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[hollodero]

(10-01-2020, 01:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes he did. Wallace asked if he would condemn and Trump said "sure" before Wallace finished and before he said he'd do anything. Just because it's not a strong enough condemnation for you does not mean he didn't do it.

One could reasonably see it that way. But yeah, I feel it was far from being strong enough. I believe a good rule of thumb would be that the group that gets condemned actually feels condemned instead of emboldened. If the latter is the case, there is an issue with the strongness of the confirmation, imho.

(10-01-2020, 01:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This is true. But as is evidenced by this very thread, I believe Trump could condemn them by stating unequivocally "I condemn them" and people would still be complaining he didn't mean it or it still wasn't strong enough for them.

Imho it is not a particular powerful point to claim "ah, even if he would have done better, it would not have been good enough for you". It might very well be true, but it's also a hypothetical. Generally speaking, doing bad and defending it by claiming even doing good wouldn't have been good enough for many is never an effective counterpoint to critizism.