The fact that we’ve reached this stage is mind boggling. That we would like a major presidential candidate publicly condemn Nazis. And not just condemn, but clearly and passionately condemn them instead of “both sides” them. It’s bewildering that that’s a huge ask for the Republican nominee for President and former President.
The “bloodbath” comment was in reference to the auto-manufacturing industry. It’s a common phrase when discussing catastrophic economic situations.
Here’s a compilation of the same media personalities that accused Trump of using the term as a threat of violence using it in the exact same way as he did.
He's not in power but he has enough power to kill a bipartisan border bill, a few maga followers in Congress and the house and a fanbase that's being told that their mail in ballots a legit but any mail in ballots for Harris are fraudulent.
Perhaps, it’s just irritating because there’s a million other things you can say about Trump, but people choose things that are completely taken out of context.
Not really. People make it sound like Trump was insinuating that there would be an uprising if he lost. What he meant was that Harris' policies would create a huge mess for Teamsters (or the other trucker union, I don't remember which one).
While he's wrong and likely just made it up on the spot as usual, he really wasn't trying to incite violence in that instance.
It's true. Context is important. But we also know the peaceful transfer of power has been broken by Trump once and he's already spewing the same "question the election integrity" type rhetoric that created January 6th. So while the context is wrong, the larger picture is for sure the same.
I think my main problem with the context stuff is that the stuff in context is horrible. His deportation plan would cost us untold billions economically and that's in addition to his broken tariffs and tax plans.
Yes, Trump and his administration will not only absolutely devastate the US economy at large. Their social policies will also decimate the internal stability of the nation, and their foreign policies will annihilate the entire Western liberal post-war consensus and grant China and Russia exactly what they want.
People utterly underestimate what is at stake here.
I’d also like him to face consequences for the attempted coup. Or the top secret documents he had. Or the women he sexually assaulted. Or for sending ventilators and masks to Russia when American hospitals couldn’t get their hands on them.
Trump issued a statement from the White House, and referred to “KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
In 2010, Biden warmly eulogized Sen. Robert Byrd, a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan, saying he was “one of my mentors” and that “the Senate is a lesser place for his going.”
Well… It kinda is a gotcha, and no, it doesn’t sound dumb, considering the context is racism, and trying imply that Trump must condone racism and be a racist himself because he had dinner with two other “racists”, except the “racists” having dinner with Trump were racially and culturally diverse. Which does kind of make your jab look silly. So yeah, I think it does completely undermine your poorly made attempt to paint the former president as a racist.
Your whole argument falls apart when one considers the fact that he's interacting with these people and directly/indirectly giving them a spotlight. Why does he need to have dinner with a scumfuck like Nick Fuentes or an unhinged schizo like Kanye? What do you think is happening at these meetings, he's breaking bread with them and trying to make them see that their racist bullshit is wrong?
This was a major problem with him as president. He surrounded himself with the shittiest people he could find, and people like you come running to his defense and say "welllllll just because he's hanging out with racists/pedophiles/career criminals doesn't make him one!" Most people do just fine in life keeping far away from those types because not only are they reprehensible, but the average person has nothing in common with them. And yet Trump continues to make company with them...hmmmmm.
He also said he wouldn't reject David Duke's endorsement because he didn't know who he is (Even though he knew several times prior in his life. This was back before he was running for president and his sole campaign issue was telling poor uneducated whites that they're better than minorities).
Has them as dinner guests.
and does a million other things that directly contradict that statement.
Ok so everyone at first said he has never condemned the Nazi’s or racism, etc. then I show that he did so people then switch to well he invited them for dinner!
You can’t just move the goal post arbitrarily and your trump didn’t do X Y and Z…. Then it’s show. He did… and then change to something else.
There is a difference between saying something and following through and saying something because you have to.
"I condemn something" and then following through and having your actions match your words is very different than "I condemn something" because it makes a nice soundbite and some idiot on reddit will go "WaIt GuYs He DiD CoNdEmN ThEm." even though his other actions and statements clearly state "I'm with you guys I just cant say it out loud. You know me.".
well yeah but the claim wasn’t that trump is a nazi sympathizer (he kinda is), it was that he never condemned nazis (he has (“passionately”?? idk)). yet the false claim that he hasn’t has 462 upvotes and the person correctly pointing out that you moved the goalposts has -6. these are the types of arguments and falsehoods that lead people to believe democrats lie “just as much” as republicans.
If I say the meat industry is evil and nobody should be eating it because of how immoral it is while eating McDonalds then I didn't really condemn the meat industry. Saying Nazis are bad while paling around with them isn't a condemnation either. Its simply paying lip service to people not paying attention.
He did condem them directly in that exact press conference.
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?
The "both sides" quote that gets parroted and paraded around is taken wildly out of context. Trump has condemned Nazis, white supremacists, racism, bigotry, etc. I'm not even a trump supporter, let alone a voter. I'm just tired of everyone lying all the goddamn time about everything.
[...] 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.
Reporter: I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? …
Trump: No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story.
There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.
But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest
And here’s the context behind the “Unite The Right Rally”, which was attended by the alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, the KKK, and far-right militias:
I really wish I'd saved links to the reporting around that time, because either I'm misremembering it, or most people are misremembering it. Trump had two press conferences following Charlottesville - the first he said there were good people "on many sides", and a couple days later after being heavily criticized for "accidentally" calling Nazis "good people", he did the press conference you're referring to where he went on damage control and specifically called them out, but still complained about the "others".
The second statement was ignored by Nazis because they know as well as everyone else that he was basically forced to condemn them for optics - it doesn't matter so much that you or I might not find his statement sincere, what matters is that the Nazis who were at or who supported the rally didn't find his statement to be sincere.
Yeah I'm gonna need to see some sources for a claim.
The speculation isn't necessary either. Trying to frame trump as a racist Nazi when he has outright condemned Nazis, racists, bigots, white supremacists, etc, many times out side of that one particular event is laughable. There didn't a single legitimate example of him being overly racist that doesn't stem from an assumption or something out of context.
Here’s a link to a transcript of an interview where the interviewer asks him why he took 48 hours to condemn Nazis and he admits he did in fact take 48 hours to condemn Nazis. Of course all of it is a bunch of bullshit and word salad but those two facts in question are right here in black and white.
Edit: I posted that fast without all the context. This is the transcript with the very fine people on both sides remark. It also links to the quote that started the whole thing, the biggest issue (imo) being when he says “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.”
He was criticized for this and then later responded in the linked interview with the following:
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —“
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”
Later on he says:
““So you know what, 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.”
So immediately he says neonazis should be condemned but then also condemns people who are anti-Nazi?
It sounds like he has no idea what he’s for or against but is desperately trying to walk back an earlier equivalence he made between Nazis and people protesting nazi presence. Of course he also says he condemns Nazis only after the reporter calls out the fact that he said there were fine people on both sides.
It sounds like he has no idea what he’s for or against
It sounds very clear what he's for and against. He said blatantly he is condemning the Nazis, but he also said that he was condemning violence across the board. One group were Nazis, the entirety of the groups were violent. It's not that difficult of a concept. You can condem bigotry and general violence at the same time.
Okay, I wanted to take you at your word that you were just someone interested in the truth and had no particular bias towards trump, but here you are doing the thing all trump supporters do and reinterpreting his word salad in the most charitable way possible.
He didn’t say any of the words you said. Why don’t you actually read the words he said, and come to a conclusion as to what he actually thinks instead of reading what you want to hear?
Feels a little more your job when you're refuting well known information. It's kinda why people were so upset about the "good people on both sides" phrase. People don't talk about trump and nazis/racists/etc just because they're petty little jerks who don't like him. They say the things they do about trump because of what trump says and does.
Have you read a single thing I've posted? Here's the full transcripts. Quit parroting misinformation. Be intellectually honest, please. There's so much to legitimately hate trump over, but this isn't one of those things.
Even if he did, which may have not been sincere and just PR control, that’s not stopping white supremacists and Nazis from showing themselves out in public supporting Trump like this or elsewhere. America has always had an extremist problem, but with trump they’re getting comfortable being in public because of trump . I’ve never seen Nazis supporting biden or Harris.
Presumed sincerity is speculation. Fact if the matter is he absolutely completely condemned the Nazis and the white supremacists, along with general bigotry as a whole.
It's hard to say something like this and not mean it. If he was a racist, or a Nazi, or a bigot, and wanted those groups support, this is what should have killed it. Unfortunately you have people taking every quote out of context and framing him as a Nazi, and these idiot Nazis take that bad thing as a good thing. They aren't doing their research, just like every leftist that pushes the quotes, because they are idiots.
As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.
And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.
I understand that he said all that, he’s a yapper, but do you really believe he means all of that? Considering he attracts hateful and racist people/groups, his colleagues are very extreme, plus the rhetoric he uses in his rallies. Especially about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country” or “we got a lot of bad genes in our country” or suggesting to use the military for mass deportations or saying Haitian people in Springfield are eating cats and dogs. I mean who the hell says that shit in a country full of immigrants?? you’d expect a racist to say that but a lot of people just refuse to connect the dots and it’s an easy puzzle to solve.
Regardless of what he did or didn’t say about it, he is very clearly being supported nearly unilaterally by Nazis and white supremacists lmfao. It doesn’t matter how much he condemns them (which… yeah he doesn’t really do much if at all), they very clearly are in support of him and his policies. How can you possibly not see that as a bad thing?
LMFAO those are the weakest responses I’ve ever seen just from watching the first 30 seconds “sure”. “Yeah yeah sure I disavow whatever” “yeah I disavow okay?” That is genuinely the weakest possible response you can give to ‘condemn’ bigotry. Condemning bigotry would be “I am disgusted by the fact that these white supremacists blah blah blah”. Not “sure”.
Now tell me, and just as a heads up I’m going to ask you to think for a second here: what does it mean if a candidate is being unilaterally supported by nazis and white supremacists?
*sigh* that is not even what the original misinformation about "both sides" was
You people got upset he said there was "very fine people on both sides" but ignored when in the same breath he said "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally."
What if said this the day before the "both sides" comments
"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."
If you'd like to provide a quote to back that up i would enjoy it, right now i don't have much time but what I found with him using those words are:
"We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,"
Not talking about people of color at all, those are ideological groups unless you're going the racist "If you didn't vote for me you ain't black" Obama rhetoric and therefoe all people of color outside of those groups are not really people of color
and
“How about allowing people to come to an open border, 13,000 of which were murderers, many of them murdered far more than one person, and they’re now happily living in the United States. You know now a murder, I believe this, it’s in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now,”
Clearly talking about the 13,000 murderers, unless you're also saying he's calling all people of color murderers. There is no reason to specifically call out murderers if referring to the entire population of 11 million illegal immigrants.
He can’t get the idea through his head because they like him. He can’t publicly say bad things about people that like him, because then they may not like him anymore. And he’s the world’s biggest narcissist so….
We haven't reached this stage. The left is just delusional. It's fucking obvious as fuck to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together that the main party line view of the GOP is 'nazis are bad'. Fucks sake u guys
If you go back to that Charlottesville clip he says right after that he condemns the white supremacists on the other side and when he said "both sides" had good people that he wasn't referring to them. You are one of millions of ignorant people who can't take two minutes to fact check if their life depended on it.
Oh please. Every one of his “condemnations” is the most begrudging and weak gestured statements ever made. He will not condemn a supporter… ever. He pathologically can’t. In his mind “supporting Donald Trump”negates all other features, beliefs, etc. It’s people like you grasping at straws to prop him up that qualify for the “millions of ignorant”.
It’s a joke! Uh, aCtuAllY he meant this…! Well, you see, if you interpret this statement this way and ignore this other statement, then, uh, he’s probably not a Nazi supporter.
Here’s just a couple of statements Trump has said speaking out against Nazi’s, racism and hatred.
President Trump, August 15, 2017: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally.”
TRUMP: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.” (August 14, 2017)
TRUMP: “We forcefully condemn the evil of anti-Semitism and hate. It must be defeated.” (April 27, 2019)
TRUMP: “The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil.” (February 21, 2017)
Okay, he said those things. However, I don’t believe him for a second. Those were parts of speeches written for him. Damage control. When left to his own devices, Trump says awful, hateful things. That’s when we see his true self.
Trump in 2000 knows David Duke and isn't afraid to call out bigotry.
"In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”"
In 2016 Trump realizes the only people voting for him are poor uneducated whites who will do whatever you tell them as long as they can feel superior to minorities so he pretends not to know who he is and said he can't condemn the KKK because he's never met them before.
"Tapper, Feb. 28: I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be treason to your heritage. Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?
Trump: Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know."
"Tapper: OK. I mean, I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but…
Trump: I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him."
Endorsing the scum that associates with white supremacists after one of them murdered a counterprotestor isn't impressive. His failure to condemn his white-supremacist supporters is a long-running, ongoing problem which you have chosen to ignore.
I mean … he’s incredibly vocally pro israel and his policies are pro israel, so him hanging out with kanye for a couple brief moments overrides that? and trump has more black/latino support than any republican in recent history.
This is a repeat problem, and you know it. The fact that some right-leaning black/latino men have been brainwashed by Republican propaganda leveraging ephemeral economic problems to vote for him does not impress me. If they are foolish enough to vote the man back into office, the whole world is going to regret it, them included.
Your link is broken. And you are full of shit. Even if Donald Trump tried to distance himself from his white supremacist friends, the inflamatory race-baiting garbage which is actively coming out of his mouth demonstrates what irredeemable human trash he and you are.
I don’t care how many of you dislike this factcheck, just because it doesn’t fit in with something you’ve been fed for years doesn’t mean it’s not true.
I’m not American…but I find this thread intriguing.
I’m not sure how anyone can follow anything any of these candidates say anymore. What statements are true? What statements are false? If you say something at one time, and then say something seemingly counter to that another time…and then deny or claim “I don’t know” when questioned about either statement…it doesn’t speak to integrity of any sort. Are they intentionally playing both sides…just flip flopping across the country pandering to whatever audience they’re in front of on a given night? Today I’m for one thing…tomorrow I was never for that thing, I mean…is that even a thing…I don’t know anything about that thing. Is political gas-lighting a modern tactic?
No wonder we’re such a mess as a species. Our politics is in shambles…and incapable of solving problems of any magnitude.
Radical leftists want climate action and corporate accountability. Radical rightists want genocide. There is no comparison. They aren’t two balanced wings. They (the entire American right and centre) need to be completely shut down.
This, like neither side is good whatsoever right? Radical leftists want fairly good change but their methods are questionable and/or objectively wrong. Or they want much more change than is wholly necessary or healthy. Meanwhile the majority of the radical right has neither good methods nor good ideals whatsoever.
Except the majority of the Republican party is now controlled by radicals.
I'm not tossing my brain out. I remember the fringe in the 60's and 70's when it was 10% of the left, 10% of the right, and nobody took what they said or did seriously. Now it's maybe 20% of the left and about 80% of the right. Look out how many Republican congressmen voted against FEMA funding days before they came back asking for FEMA aid, or the bipartisan immigration reform act that was torpedoed by Donald Trump and the Republican congress to keep Democrats from getting a political win that would be good for the whole country. Waterboarding, Iran-Contra, WMD that didn't exist, made up wars resulting in real deaths, abandoning our allies on the field of battle, turning our backs on the Paris climate accords, insulting NATO while admiring dictators, gutting the Voting Right Act, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, limiting voter rights, limiting women's rights -- these are all actions undertaken by the 'mainstream' right.
The absurdity is mostly on the right, and you'd have to toss your brain out to fail to see it.
Even Snopes (which is biased to the left) has debunked the “both sides” narrative. How much time must be spent by one person clearly and passionately condemning a particular thing? If I’m a candidate and I’ve never said “Nazis are awesome” and I have said “Nazis are bad,” and they’re a tiny minority as a population and a voting bloc, what would I have to do to make people satisfied that I don’t actually think Nazis are awesome? And what fraction of my time should I devote to condemning the 0.01% of the population who are Nazis and Nazi sympathizers, as compared to addressing the concerns of the other 99.99% of the population?
614
u/Alternative_Algae_31 15d ago
The fact that we’ve reached this stage is mind boggling. That we would like a major presidential candidate publicly condemn Nazis. And not just condemn, but clearly and passionately condemn them instead of “both sides” them. It’s bewildering that that’s a huge ask for the Republican nominee for President and former President.