A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[TheDrake]

Aga

It's funny how Trump's messages have to constantly be reinterpreted and modified to make them look better than they actually are. I'm going to take him at his word.

I'd take it in the context of an abortion clinic and when the "Right to Life" protesters were informed their "right to protest" did not extend to being able to block access.

Again, you're inventing qualifications that Trump never used. Reinterpretation.

[DonaldD]

I'd take it in the context of an abortion clinic and when the "Right to Life" protesters were informed their "right to protest" did not extend to being able to block access.

This has nothing to do with the continuous need to reinterpret Trump's words so that they don't actually mean what they literally mean, but what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" suggests that there is a right for one person to stop another person from accessing legal services?

[TheDeamon]

I'd take it in the context of an abortion clinic and when the "Right to Life" protesters were informed their "right to protest" did not extend to being able to block access.

This has nothing to do with the continuous need to reinterpret Trump's words so that they don't actually mean what they literally mean, but what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" suggests that there is a right for one person to stop another person from accessing legal services?

So then you're also agreed that in that same vein, your right to peaceably assemble does NOT include the ability to do so in a manner which prevents others from attending a lawful gathering?

[TheDrake]

I'd take it in the context of an abortion clinic and when the "Right to Life" protesters were informed their "right to protest" did not extend to being able to block access.

This has nothing to do with the continuous need to reinterpret Trump's words so that they don't actually mean what they literally mean, but what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" suggests that there is a right for one person to stop another person from accessing legal services?

So then you're also agreed that in that same vein, your right to peaceably assemble does NOT include the ability to do so in a manner which prevents others from attending a lawful gathering?

Correct. However you CAN block the way and expect to be non-violently removed and arrested, not beaten with sticks and gassed. Trump didn't clarify what kind of treatment he wanted to give them that they didn't get in those other places.

[TheDeamon]

Correct. However you CAN block the way and expect to be non-violently removed and arrested, not beaten with sticks and gassed. Trump didn't clarify what kind of treatment he wanted to give them that they didn't get in those other places.

I'm reasonably certain that some agitators will make sure things escalate quickly once they try to disperse the counter-protesters. The tear gas will come out.

[DonaldD]

Maybe so - and those agitators are subject to the laws that they break.

But Trump was clear in threatening "any protestor" with treatment that they did not experience in New York, Seattle or Minneapolis. The "leader" of your country was explicitly promising to violate a part of the constitution explicitly designed to rein in abuse by the government.

i know that we have come to expect this of Trump, but that you have allowed yourself to become inured to it is on you.  This really should give you pause, that your instinctive response to a threat by Trump to violate the constitution is to defend or excuse his actions.

[TheDeamon]

Maybe so - and those agitators are subject to the laws that they break.

Assuming they can be identified, and with public health advisories making people running around in masks not an immediate red flag, we have challenges to deal with there when we're not a heavy surveillance state like the UK or other nations.

But Trump was clear in threatening "any protestor" with treatment that they did not experience in New York, Seattle or Minneapolis. The "leader" of your country was explicitly promising to violate a part of the constitution explicitly designed to rein in abuse by the government.

He didn't say "any protester" he said "protesters" and the context he said it in would indicate a certain category of them, not all of them. But Trump is painful to parse on a good day.
 

i know that we have come to expect this of Trump, but that you have allowed yourself to become inured to it is on you.  This really should give you pause, that your instinctive response to a threat by Trump to violate the constitution is to defend or excuse his actions.

Until he actually does it, rather than bluster about possibly doing it, it's just bluster. The rhetoric doesn't help at all, as he's basically set the script for Saturday.

1) "Peaceful protestors" move into an area to block access to the rally venue for either Trump, or other attendees, if not both.
2) Police move in to disperse the crowd to enable access.
3) Agitators escalate the situation declaring "their right to protest" is being violated.
4) Police escalate to more forceful means of crowd control.
5) Leftwing media wrings their hands over another example of police brutality, bring on talking heads to talk about their concerns about Trump's disregard for their right to protest.

[DonaldD]

He didn't say "any protester" he said "protesters" and the context he said it in would indicate a certain category of them, not all of them. But Trump is painful to parse on a good day.
 

He literally said "Any protesters" - those were exactly the first two words of his tweet.

And no, the context would not indicate a certain category of protesters.  That's what the explicit word "or" means, as well as those implied by the commas ("Any protesters 'or' anarchists 'or' agitators 'or' looters or lowlifes ").  This is another instance of you being prone to reinterpret Trump.  And the wording is not likely accidental: he and his followers have been conflating "looters" and "antifa" with the vast majority of peaceful protesters very consistently.

[Kasandra]

Correct. However you CAN block the way and expect to be non-violently removed and arrested, not beaten with sticks and gassed. Trump didn't clarify what kind of treatment he wanted to give them that they didn't get in those other places.

I'm reasonably certain that some agitators will make sure things escalate quickly once they try to disperse the counter-protesters. The tear gas will come out.

Trump's dog whistle call for counter-protesters and warning that implied he will unleash the dogs was his attempt to raise the likelihood for violent clashes and fires.  But you won't be able to blame him for anything that happens; he only lit the match.

[TheDeamon]

Amazing, it's like you guys have never heard of shorthand being used for anything besides nefarious purposes.

And taking literal interpretation to entirely new levels to boot, with regards to comments from someone you should know not to take literally.

[TheDeamon]

He didn't say "any protester" he said "protesters" and the context he said it in would indicate a certain category of them, not all of them. But Trump is painful to parse on a good day.
 

He literally said "Any protesters" - those were exactly the first two words of his tweet.

And no, the context would not indicate a certain category of protesters.  That's what the explicit word "or" means, as well as those implied by the commas ("Any protesters 'or' anarchists 'or' agitators 'or' looters or lowlifes ").  This is another instance of you being prone to reinterpret Trump.  And the wording is not likely accidental: he and his followers have been conflating "looters" and "antifa" with the vast majority of peaceful protesters very consistently.

I'll take a mea culpa on remembering my interpretation of what he said rather than the actual words he used. But let us revisit this, because you seem to forget English has other rules which can be invoked.

Any protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis. It will be a much different scene!

Going back to my immediately previous post about "short hand" something which Twitter definitely encourages by the way. There is a practice where in the event that "Any" is used in conjunction with a list can instead be (generically) rendered as "Any of the following types of" which is we then get into that earlier context discussion. That people want to ignore.

So with that shorthand matter out of the way, "Any protester" only works the way you're wanting to make it work if he only used the word protester. Which he didn't.

So with the shorthand being placed back in, his quote becomes:

Any (of the following types of) protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis. It will be a much different scene!

And now in THAT context, where he's then presumed to be talking about "types of protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes" means he is discussing a set which have things in common.

Now when you can show where peaceful, non-disruptive, protesters share common ground with anarchists, agitators, looters and lowlifes, I'll agree that Trump's post is threatening peaceful protesters who aren't out to seek mayhem in some form.

[DonaldD]

That only partly works if the following nouns are used to modify the initial one - and that would be done by using other punctuation, not a comma.  For instance, he might have written "any protesters: anarchists, agitators, etc" or maybe "any protesters - anarchists, agitators, etc".

But by using the comma between that word and the rest, he is NOT making that distinction. 

And I say "partly works" because what about "protesters, saboteurs", or "protesters, anarchists".  By your shorthand, those people would not be met fire and fury like never visited on protesters before.

And of course, this ignores the broader context, which is that Trump has been consistently characterizing the protests as primarily violent, illegal, and populated by anti-Trumpists.  But this particular reading should give him the benefit of the doubt, even though his sentence structure  does not support such a reading, and his recent history in demonizing all protesters doesn't support such a reading either.

And that is the point - he is not going to send in the army - he can't actually do that, he doesn't have the power.  But this is one more instance of him conflating "protester" with "violent agitator" by implying that he would violate the constitution to put them in their place, him being all tough and bone-spurrish and all.

[Kasandra]

Amazing, it's like you guys have never heard of shorthand being used for anything besides nefarious purposes.

And taking literal interpretation to entirely new levels to boot, with regards to comments from someone you should know not to take literally.

Said by Ornery's top Trump interpreter so that we won't foolishly believe he means what he says.

I'll take a mea culpa on remembering my interpretation of what he said rather than the actual words he used. But let us revisit this, because you seem to forget English has other rules which can be invoked.

Uh-huh.

[TheDrake]

You'd like some context? Ok, here you go.

The man that was — I don’t know, you say “roughed up” — he was so obnoxious and so loud, he was screaming — I had 10,000 people in the room yesterday, 10,000 people, and this guy started screaming by himself. And I don’t know, “rough up” — he should have been, maybe he should have been roughed up. Because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing

Thinks somebody should be roughed up for being loud.

[TheDrake]

"We should have legislation that if somebody wants to burn the American flag and stomp on it, just burn it, they go to jail for one year,’’ Trump said.

Article 329 of Penal Code of Russian Federation bans any form of desecration of Russian Flag and Russian Coat of Arms. The worst penalty is one year in prison.

[TheDeamon]

"We should have legislation that if somebody wants to burn the American flag and stomp on it, just burn it, they go to jail for one year,’’ Trump said.

Article 329 of Penal Code of Russian Federation bans any form of desecration of Russian Flag and Russian Coat of Arms. The worst penalty is one year in prison.

Lucky for the protesters that flag burning and desecration has been deemed protected speech and would require a Constitutional Amendment to criminalize.

Veterans groups and others have been trying for years to get that decision reversed.

[wmLambert]

This morning, My middle son from Tennessee called me to wish me a happy Father's Day, and asked if I saw the rally last night. He said he flipped through the channels after Trump's speech and said the reporters aren't even trying to hide their disdain and mockery. It is so evident now that no one can doubt their bias. The sad thing is so many listen to them and give them any credence at all.

The one thing I was left with after watching it, was the image of Biden trying to salute 600 times in the blistering sun, or giving a speech which wasn't self-serving, but praising the cadets. Wait -  he could do that now that Trump wrote it for him. If nothing else, Biden is a true plagiarist.

[DonaldD]

First, Trump doubles-down on the racism: Trump at “Students for Trump” Convention

… it’s got all different names… Wuhan… Wuhan was catching on… Coronavirus, right?  Kung Flu, yeah? [inaudible] Kung Flu

And the racists in the audience went wild…

And then the president brings the stooped:

COVID, COVID-19, COVID, I said what’s the 19. COVID-19, some people can’t explain the 19

It so nice to see the comedian-in-chief working on his bits in the smaller venues...

[rightleft22]

This morning, My middle son from Tennessee called me to wish me a happy Father's Day, and asked if I saw the rally last night. He said he flipped through the channels after Trump's speech and said the reporters aren't even trying to hide their disdain and mockery. It is so evident now that no one can doubt their bias. The sad thing is so many listen to them and give them any credence at all.

The one thing I was left with after watching it, was the image of Biden trying to salute 600 times in the blistering sun, or giving a speech which wasn't self-serving, but praising the cadets. Wait -  he could do that now that Trump wrote it for him. If nothing else, Biden is a true plagiarist.

the problem is that Trump makes it to easy to role ones eyes and wonder wtf. Nine minutes on his walk down some ramp and 0 minutes on policy or plans. What the heck do you think the media is going to focus on? What kind of people enjoy listen to that drivel for hours? So uncomfortable.

You and your son can't help it yourself - watching Biden trying saluting 600 times and calling out his speeches as being all self-serving - no your fearful leader would never make such speaks.... none of his 1 - 2 hour rambles  are ever self-serving.  But I'm betting even you have been unable to listen to a full rally ramble but watching Biden saluting 600 times that you watch?

[DonaldD]

Trump not briefed on Russian bounties placed on US troops

Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an “anonymous source” by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us.....

• According to the New York Times European and US intelligence agencies have known about the bounties placed by the GRU for months.
  
• While stating that neither the president nor the VP were informed of this information, press secretary McEnany did not dispute the existence or substance of the intelligence itself.
• Given the nature of this information, why was the White House not informed of what is unquestionably politically explosive intelligence? Isn't this the type of intel that absolutely must be in the hands of the White House for it to effectively make foreign policy decisions, not to mention to act to protect military personnel?
• Who made the decision to keep this information from the White House, and should there be repercussions?

[Wayward Son]

I was rolling my eyes at this, Donald, when I heard it.  AFAIK, this denial leads to only three possible conclusions:

1.  Donald Trump was bald-faced lying when he said it.
2.  U.S. Intelligence has become thoroughly incompetent under the President Donald Trump, and thought that this wasn't significant enough to even mention.
3.  Donald Trump's memory has become so bad that he forgot about something so outrageous as this.

I'm not sure which of these possibilities makes him look the least-worst.

[DonaldD]

Rolling your eyes?  I have no idea what you mean!  😉

[DonaldD]

Donald Trump retweets video where man chants "white power"

Once again, he didn't hear it, or he was joking, or taken out of context, or didn't mean they were very fine people.  At some point, you would think even his die hard apologists would have a hard time reconciling all his racist actions... at some point, you really should believe someone when they tell you who they are.

[rightleft22]

Trump has always shown his true nature - Sadly it will only be history that wonder's how so many never saw it

On her way to work one morning
Down the path alongside the lake
A tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
“Oh well,” she cried, “I'll take you in and I'll take care of you”
“Take me in oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman,” sighed the snake
She wrapped him up all cozy in a curvature of silk
And then laid him by the fireside with some honey and some milk
Now she hurried home from work that night as soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she'd taken in had been revived
“Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman,” sighed the snake
Now she clutched him to her bosom, “You're so beautiful,” she cried
“But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died”
Now she stroked his pretty skin and then she kissed and held him tight
But instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite
“Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman,” sighed the snake
“I saved you,” cried that woman
“And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
”Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman,“ sighed the snake

[TheDeamon]

Donald Trump retweets video where man chants "white power"

Once again, he didn't hear it, or he was joking, or taken out of context, or didn't mean they were very fine people.  At some point, you would think even his die hard apologists would have a hard time reconciling all his racist actions... at some point, you really should believe someone when they tell you who they are.

And this is where twitter censorship is annoying to say the least, I could scour the internet seeking the version Trump posted but cannot be certain I'm actually seeing what he posted.

But from someone I consider to be reasonably unbiased on the matter who claims to have seen the video. The guy is being heckled, jeered, and having numerous epithets hurled at him for tens of seconds prior to his using that response. You don't see them reporting on that part of things.

"After tens of seconds(or possibly minutes) of being jeered by a crowd of protesters with racially charged rhetoric of their own, man responds back with some racially charged invective of his own."

High probability the guy was being sarcastic/ironic in his usage. Not even going to try to guess what Trump was thinking in sharing the video. Chances are good he probably didn't even watch the full thing, so he wasn't even aware of how it concluded.

[DonaldD]

And this is where twitter censorship is annoying to say the least, I could scour the internet seeking the version Trump posted but cannot be certain I'm actually seeing what he posted.

Twitter censorship?  Trump deleted his own post.  At the very least, he was somehow convinced that the optics were bad, if not the content.

[Kasandra]

But from someone I consider to be reasonably unbiased on the matter who claims to have seen the video. The guy is being heckled, jeered, and having numerous epithets hurled at him for tens of seconds prior to his using that response. You don't see them reporting on that part of things.

OK, he didn't mean any offense when he yelled White Nationalist at people who were heckling because they object to things Trump says and does.  He was just joining in the fun.

[Wayward Son]

Chances are good he probably didn't even watch the full thing, so he wasn't even aware of how it concluded.

TheDeamon, you are so ill-informed on this one.

Look at the retweet here.  The man yells "white power" in the first ten seconds of the video.  Are you saying the President can't even concentrate for ten seconds on something that he reposts?

And as so far as what he's thinking--he better damn-well explain himself, don't you think?  And apologize for it.  Because right now it appears that he is perfectly fine with the idea of "white power," or that he thinks that "black power" is a joke you can make fun of.

Either way, just another piece of evidence that our President is a racist.

[rightleft22]

High probability the guy was being sarcastic/ironic in his usage. Not even going to try to guess what Trump was thinking in sharing the video. Chances are good he probably didn't even watch the full thing, so he wasn't even aware of how it concluded.

The intention of the guy is not relevant to the issue of the President retweeting content. As President perhaps he deserves the benefit of the doubt the first time or two if however there emerges a pattern I think it fair to call a club a club. 

At this point its a question of leadership and what that leadership is leading to, or should be.

[DonaldD]

Not to mention - as president, you don't get to delete your own statements and pretend you never said them.

The man on the retweeted video yelled "White Power!" - and yes, there may have been context - but retweeting a guy yelling "White Power!" pretty much requires you to explain why you retweeted then deleted the video.  Instead, he's hiding behind spokespeople in order to avoid taking responsibility for his racist actions.

He could even have corrected his initial retweet by re-retweeting himself, stating that he had not properly listened to the original video, then apologizing and explaining that there is no excuse for screaming "white power!"... but he would never do that, and I think we all know why he would never do that.

(to whit, he depends on the people who would proudly yell "white power" to vote for him, and chastising them would alienate them and depress voter turnout, but also because he desperately needs to change the channel right now)

[TheDeamon]

And this is where twitter censorship is annoying to say the least, I could scour the internet seeking the version Trump posted but cannot be certain I'm actually seeing what he posted.

Twitter censorship?  Trump deleted his own post.  At the very least, he was somehow convinced that the optics were bad, if not the content.

Bad assumption on my part, noted. Also noted that the site linked by Wayward later appears to contain the initial tweet that Trump retweeted at least going by the image the BBC shared. So it presumably is legit.

Chances are good he probably didn't even watch the full thing, so he wasn't even aware of how it concluded.

TheDeamon, you are so ill-informed on this one.

Look at the retweet here.  The man yells "white power" in the first ten seconds of the video.  Are you saying the President can't even concentrate for ten seconds on something that he reposts?

And as so far as what he's thinking--he better damn-well explain himself, don't you think?  And apologize for it.  Because right now it appears that he is perfectly fine with the idea of "white power," or that he thinks that "black power" is a joke you can make fun of.

Either way, just another piece of evidence that our President is a racist.

I'll blame the person I was getting the information from on the earlier post, in that he was probably led to a different video and drew conclusions from that one rather than the actual video Trump shared.

As to the video being proof that Trump is a racist. I'd say the only thing it proves is that Trump is indifferent on the matter of racial issues, especially as it relates to words. It would also be in keeping with his general approach and attitude of words being cheap and even meaningless in most cases(unless they involve him somehow). It's the actions and results he's more interested in.

And his actions, and his results still don't indicate any meaningful inclination towards racism. (Twitter falls under "words" not actions)

[TheDeamon]

And this is where twitter censorship is annoying to say the least, I could scour the internet seeking the version Trump posted but cannot be certain I'm actually seeing what he posted.

Twitter censorship?  Trump deleted his own post.  At the very least, he was somehow convinced that the optics were bad, if not the content.

Bad assumption on my part, noted. Also noted that the site linked by Wayward later appears to contain the initial tweet that Trump retweeted at least going by the image the BBC shared. So it presumably is legit.

And reviewing the BBC article again, I determined how that assumption happened, embedded within the BBC article was a link entitled "Twitter hides Trump tweet for 'glorifying violence'" and when paired with reporting that the Trump tweet in this article "was deleted" it turned things into "Trumps tweet was deleted by Twitter"

[DonaldD]

So, he's indifferent to the racism of his words, so that cannot be evidence of racism. Interesting.

[rightleft22]

As to the video being proof that Trump is a racist. I'd say the only thing it proves is that Trump is indifferent on the matter of racial issues, especially as it relates to words. It would also be in keeping with his general approach and attitude of words being cheap and even meaningless in most cases(unless they involve him somehow). It's the actions and results he's more interested in.

And his actions, and his results still don't indicate any meaningful inclination towards racism. (Twitter falls under "words" not actions)

As a leader I think the standards must be set higher then that.

In the current dialog about racism and systemic racism the idea that we each must address the issue personally (who we are) we must also look how positions and policies we support, allow and or look away from... impact the whole

The words of a leader matter, that they have impact on the system. Trump as a leader does not get left off the hook because his words can prove him being or not being this or that but as a important role within the system and systemic of that system he carries a huge responsibility. 

Ignorantly retweeting something that dons't reflect his 'nature' or cannot be proved to reflect his nature or beliefs can not be a excuse.

[DonaldD]

... and so it begins... (continues? begins again?) Congress demands Trump provide answers about Russian bounties

[TheDeamon]

So, he's indifferent to the racism of his words, so he cannot be racist. Interesting.

Indifference, or more simply put apathy, on the subject of racism or word choice does not make a person racist. It means they simply don't care one way or the other. That is what indifference and apathy mean after all.

While it takes two sides to communicate, if the speaker doesn't mean something, they don't mean it. How the other person receives it is immaterial to the matter.

Now reading intent is near impossible at the best of times, we cannot read minds after all, so what you say(or type) is often a first level filter people use to decide things.

That's all well and good, and by that "first level filter" Trump looks like he could be a racist. But that isn't enough to convict, or at least, it shouldn't be.

At least for me, I'm more about judging people by their actions/"works"/deeds, rather than their words. Plenty of people talk a big a game but when the chips are down, they're nowhere to be found. Which brings us to Donald Trump, sure the Trump organization probably did discriminate based on race as recently as the 1970's, but the reality is, practically everyone was doing much the same thing at that time. All that says about Trump is that he wasn't a trail blazer for Civil Rights in the 1970's, as he instead decided to do the "good business" thing and made sure that nothing happened which might upset existing customers at his properties. Which makes him boringly average, and somewhat mercenary in outlook.

But then we get into the 1980's, 1990's, and 2000's and we see Trump creating all kinds of shades of grey, including him bringing lawsuits against city and country governments over the matter of discrimination on the basis of race and religious affiliation. Now we can attribute some of that to Trump being a mercenary again, because getting those road blocks cleared meant opening the doors to more customers for several of his businesses.

Then we have things like the Criminal Justice reform that Trump Championed, not Obama, not Biden, not Bush. Donald Trump championed a criminal justice reform bill which freed tens of thousands of non-violent black inmates from imprisonment. He created the conditions for the most prosperous period in history that racial minorities in this country have ever seen in the 60-some years most of those metrics go back.

And yet Trump is somehow racist as he goes about creating new initiatives to help black schools and other black organizations get more support in providing more and better educational opportunities for minorities.

His words may sometimes indicate one thing, but what he's actually doing is saying another thing entirely.

[TheDeamon]

As to the video being proof that Trump is a racist. I'd say the only thing it proves is that Trump is indifferent on the matter of racial issues, especially as it relates to words. It would also be in keeping with his general approach and attitude of words being cheap and even meaningless in most cases(unless they involve him somehow). It's the actions and results he's more interested in.

And his actions, and his results still don't indicate any meaningful inclination towards racism. (Twitter falls under "words" not actions)

As a leader I think the standards must be set higher then that.

In the current dialog about racism and systemic racism the idea that we each must address the issue personally (who we are) we must also look how positions and policies we support, allow and or look away from... impact the whole

The words of a leader matter, that they have impact on the system. Trump as a leader does not get left off the hook because his words can prove him being or not being this or that but as a important role within the system and systemic of that system he carries a huge responsibility. 

Ignorantly retweeting something that dons't reflect his 'nature' or cannot be proved to reflect his nature or beliefs can not be a excuse.

This I can agree with fully and even endorse to a very large degree.

What I cannot agree with was the earlier assertion that the tweet "proved Trump is racist."

[rightleft22]

And yet Trump is somehow racist as he goes about creating new initiatives to help black schools and other black organizations get more support in providing more and better educational opportunities for minorities.

His words may sometimes indicate one thing, but what he's actually doing is saying another thing entirely.

Most people are not either or. One can be at times racist and or anti-racist.   As president it can be argued that Trump is systemic to the problem of racism even if it a matter of  ignorance.  (ignorance the worse type of systemic racism and is unacceptable for a Leader) If he is  blind to the impact of his words, though those words may not define his character as racist, he remains part of the systemic problem no matter how many 'black schools' he builds.

What I cannot agree with was the earlier assertion that the tweet "proved Trump is racist."

 A current argument is that their is no middle ground between racist and anit-racist and that these labels are not to be applied to as 'being the person' (we are more then a single attribute/label). The question we are being ask to ask ourselves when confronted with issues and such is if our words, stance, etc is equally inclusive to all (anti-raciest) or not. If we are honest with ourselves we will find that we tend to the system status quo - not being anti-racist. As their is no other option in the argument, in regard to the specific issue we are being racist.  As to our responsibility to the system we are part of the problem or part of the solution.

[DonaldD]

What I cannot agree with was the earlier assertion that the tweet "proved Trump is racist."

Nobody said it did.  But it is one more piece of evidence that he is racist, and at this point, only the most devoted can possibly ignore the pattern, or explain this away as not  racist given the context of all his statements, and actions, both recent and historical.

If you have to hypothesize that his statements could possibly be interpreted as non racist, if you squint and look through only one eye, and that you have to do this over and over again, at some point you either have to question the basis of your belief, or accept that nothing will convince you.

[Kasandra]

Indifference, or more simply put apathy, on the subject of racism or word choice does not make a person racist. It means they simply don't care one way or the other. That is what indifference and apathy mean after all.

Indifference to racism is racism, full stop.  One can be indifferent to slavery, sexual abuse, animal cruelty or rampant injustice, or whether other people have access to health care, etc., etc., etc.  Or, as Trump might say, some of the slave owners, sexual abusers, animal abusers, those who deny people health care or treat people unfairly in the justice system are good people, too.  Not my problem as long as it doesn't affect me personally.

[TheDeamon]

Nobody said it did.  But it is one more piece of evidence that he is racist, and at this point, only the most devoted can possibly ignore the pattern, or explain this away as not  racist given the context of all his statements, and actions, both recent and historical.

If you have to hypothesize that his statements could possibly be interpreted as non racist, if you squint and look through only one eye, and that you have to do this over and over again, at some point you either have to question the basis of your belief, or accept that nothing will convince you.

Can anyone point to actions that Trump has pursued since the 1980's that are clearly racist? To be clear, the travel bans don't count for this exercise, as that's already been covered previously.

[Kasandra]

Central Park Five.  Can you explain what he did any other way?

[DonaldD]

Trump retweets racist, doctored image of Schumer and Pelosi in 'Muslim' garb

[DonaldD]

Trump retweets anti-Muslim video

[DonaldD]

Trump tells ethnic congresswoman to go back to their own countries

[DonaldD]

To be clear, the travel bans don't count for this exercise, as that's already been covered previously.

That's very convenient, and as pointed out, you can squint, tilt your head sideways, and ignore each and every piece of evidence.

[Wayward Son]

Remember, TheDeamon, there are also different degrees of racism.

You don't have to be a full-fledge KKK member who wants to ship back all the blacks to Africa to be a racist.  Just quietly believing that black are less intelligent, less moral, and inferior to you and/or everyone else would also be considered racist.  As would turning a blind eye to racist actions by others.

All these types of racism are not equally bad, but they are all forms of racism.  You don't have to actively be trying to hurt blacks or others groups to be racist.  But that doesn't mean a person is not racist.

[Fenring]

Remember, TheDeamon, there are also different degrees of racism.

You don't have to be a full-fledge KKK member who wants to ship back all the blacks to Africa to be a racist.  Just quietly believing that black are less intelligent, less moral, and inferior to you and/or everyone else would also be considered racist.  As would turning a blind eye to racist actions by others.

These are not degrees of racism, you are mixing up your terms. What you are describing include prejudice, stereotyping, and perhaps racism as well, but merely having an improper thought "is not" racism. The far left currently defines it as unequal outcomes, period full stop, which makes racism a systemic statement, not a matter of whether you believe X or Y. That is why the claim "but I do not have negative attitudes towards minorities" is considered to be a non-answer to the charge that one is racist. The sort of prejudice and stereotyping you describe can exist inside a racist system, but also not.  Your lingo is 20 years out of date.

[DonaldD]

Remember, TheDeamon, there are also different degrees of racism.

You don't have to be a full-fledge KKK member who wants to ship back all the blacks to Africa to be a racist.  Just quietly believing that black are less intelligent, less moral, and inferior to you and/or everyone else would also be considered racist.  As would turning a blind eye to racist actions by others.

These are not degrees of racism, you are mixing up your terms. What you are describing include prejudice, stereotyping, and perhaps racism as well, but merely having an improper thought "is not" racism. The far left currently defines it as unequal outcomes, period full stop, which makes racism a systemic statement, not a matter of whether you believe X or Y. That is why the claim "but I do not have negative attitudes towards minorities" is considered to be a non-answer to the charge that one is racist. The sort of prejudice and stereotyping you describe can exist inside a racist system, but also not.  Your lingo is 20 years out of date.

You allow your own language to be completely defined by "the far left"?  Interesting.

Other folks who aren't quite as beholden to the far left as you define racism, at least partly, as prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity.

[Kasandra]

Remember, TheDeamon, there are also different degrees of racism.

You don't have to be a full-fledge KKK member who wants to ship back all the blacks to Africa to be a racist.  Just quietly believing that black are less intelligent, less moral, and inferior to you and/or everyone else would also be considered racist.  As would turning a blind eye to racist actions by others.

These are not degrees of racism, you are mixing up your terms. What you are describing include prejudice, stereotyping, and perhaps racism as well

I beg to differ.  Having prejudice against blacks and stereotyping them [as inferior] is racism.

, but merely having an improper thought "is not" racism. The far left currently defines it as unequal outcomes, period full stop, which makes racism a systemic statement, not a matter of whether you believe X or Y.

If we can agree that the neither the "far left" nor the "far right" are mainstream left or right politically, it's irrelevant what they think if you're talking about attitudes within the general population.  That most populous segment is where institutional and systemic racism exists and is perpetuated.

That is why the claim "but I do not have negative attitudes towards minorities" is considered to be a non-answer to the charge that one is racist.

True for several reasons.  The biggest is that it often isn't true.  Someone who hasn't been confronted with acting on their so-called principles isn't a necessarily reliable witness to their own thoughts and feelings.  There is also "the soft bigotry of low expectations," which is how most mainstream racists think and behave.

The sort of prejudice and stereotyping you describe can exist inside a racist system, but also not.  Your lingo is 20 years out of date. 

It seems very current to me.