US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[Super Speed]

I'm genuinely curious. Are frum ardent Trumkins and apologists bothered at all by Trump's repeated hesitance to condemn white supremacist Nazis by name, or you're good with it? @Super Speed, @good sam, @ilherman, @aygart, @TimT etc.

Like he said he condemns hate on all sides. Stop reading so much into everything.

[good sam]

I'm genuinely curious. Are frum ardent Trumkins and apologists bothered at all by Trump's repeated hesitance to condemn white supremacist Nazis by name, or you're good with it? @Super Speed, @good sam, @ilherman, @aygart, @TimT etc.

His condemnation didn't sound hesitant to me.

[HKFS]

Like he said he condemns hate on all sides. Stop reading so much into everything.

Please.  Trump has a problem calling out the far right. If you don't see that, you are delusional.  Hopefully it is due to Bannon's influence and hopefully Bannon will be gone soon.

[HKFS]

His condemnation didn't sound hesitant to me.

See previous post.

[Yehuda57]

Did you read upthread?

I don't recall you taking a position either way, only:

I ask questions

Like he said he condemns hate on all sides. Stop reading so much into everything.

When there is a terrorist attack in Israel, and a leftist politician condemns hate on all sides, we rightly insist that they call out the terror by name. Why not now?

His condemnation didn't sound hesitant to me.

He refused to name and specify the white terrorists, which is something he criticized Obama, Hilary and others for not doing wrt other terrorists. So his omission in this instance seems deliberate. Especially considering he has a history of being hesitant to criticize and/or disavow white supremacists in the past.

[good sam]

He refused to name and specify the white terrorists, which is something he criticized Obama, Hilary and others for not doing wrt other terrorists. So his omission in this instance seems deliberate. Especially considering he has a history of being hesitant to criticize and/or disavow white supremacists in the past.

He specifically named the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists. Did you hear the speech?

https://youtu.be/U1lAYWN_Z00

[Yehuda57]

He specifically named the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists. Did you hear the speech?

https://youtu.be/U1lAYWN_Z00

Are you furreal? 3 days late and a dollar short. And you call that not being hesitant?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/14/trump-plays-both-sides-with-charlottesville-response-241633

[HKFS]

Are you furreal? 3 days late and a dollar short. And you call that not being hesitant?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/14/trump-plays-both-sides-with-charlottesville-response-241633

+10

[TimT]

When there is a terrorist attack in Israel, and a leftist politician condemns hate on all sides, we rightly insist that they call out the terror by name. Why not now?

Because both sides are terrorists. (And both sides are "white" terrorists. So no reason to mention "white") One side had a guy using a car as terrorism, the other side had dozens of people using pipes, bricks, bats, & bottles filled with cement as terrorism.
(If I'm a trumpkin then he's in real trouble)

[aygart]

Because both sides are terrorists. (And both sides are "white" terrorists. So no reason to mention "white") One side had a guy using a car as terrorism, the other side had dozens of people using pipes, bricks, bats, & bottles filled with cement as terrorism.
(If I'm a trumpkin then he's in real trouble)

This seems to be the case and is an important distinction. I had mentioned that it also makes a difference that we did not see it real time but are only hearing the "commentary with a bit of news" after the fact. I do feel he should have mentioned the hate groups by name sooner though.

BTW his criticism of Obama was a not hesitancy of calling out ISIS by name rather a hesitancy in calling out the ideology. Trump did call out the ideology by name "Hate Groups on both sides".

[Yehuda57]

Because both sides are terrorists. (And both sides are "white" terrorists. So no reason to mention "white") One side had a guy using a car as terrorism, the other side had dozens of people using pipes, bricks, bats, & bottles filled with cement as terrorism.
(If I'm a trumpkin then he's in real trouble)

I have repeatedly said you can condemn both sides by name.

Condemning white supremacists or Antifa has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with ideology. You are not condemning terrorists who are white, but terrorists who ascribe to a nazi ideology.

The KKK and their ilk have historically killed many, many Americans, and even in modern times white supremacists are responsible for more domestic terrorism than any other group. Trump has had trouble in the past separating himself from members of those groups who are his supporters. They specifically said that his condemnations were done in a way that showed he still support for them. (Delay until pressure mounts and then say something). Now, as president, there was a domestic terrorist who killed someone and he repeated his tepid, delayed condemnation tactic.

Keep in mind this is the same guy who is swift and relentless about criticizing and attacking. He *repeatedly* calls out reporters, individuals, actors, ANYONE he disagrees with, and with this he could barely read the prepared remarks three days late.

(If I'm a trumpkin then he's in real trouble)

I included apologists. 

All I wanted to know is if frum Trump supporters could ever admit he has a very real and blatant problem with dealing with actual Nazis, and seems to be specifically pandering to them as a base.
 

BTW his criticism of Obama was a not hesitancy of calling out ISIS by name rather a hesitancy in calling out the ideology. Trump did call out the ideology by name "Hate Groups on both sides".

Please, the ideology is not "Hate Group" it is white supremacy and Nazism.

[aygart]

Please, the ideology is not "Hate Group" it is white supremacy and Nazism.

agreed

[zale]

I have repeatedly said you can condemn both sides by name.

Condemning white supremacists or Antifa has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with ideology. You are not condemning terrorists who are white, but terrorists who ascribe to a nazi ideology.

The KKK and their ilk have historically killed many, many Americans, and even in modern times white supremacists are responsible for more domestic terrorism than any other group. Trump has had trouble in the past separating himself from members of those groups who are his supporters. They specifically said that his condemnations were done in a way that showed he still support for them. (Delay until pressure mounts and then say something). Now, as president, there was a domestic terrorist who killed someone and he repeated his tepid, delayed condemnation tactic.

Keep in mind this is the same guy who is swift and relentless about criticizing and attacking. He *repeatedly* calls out reporters, individuals, actors, ANYONE he disagrees with, and with this he could barely read the prepared remarks three days late.
I included apologists. 

All I wanted to know is if frum Trump supporters could ever admit he has a very real and blatant problem with dealing with actual Nazis, and seems to be specifically pandering to them as a base.
 
Please, the ideology is not "Hate Group" it is white supremacy and Nazism.

The problem with your arguments is that you are disingenuous.

You state that you want Trump to call out both sides by name, but what you REALLY want is for him to call out the White Nazi group.

I hate Nazi scum as much as anyone else, but I hate ANTIFA too. It's Hitler and Stalin and I hate them both.

The fact of the matter is that the Nazi scumbags were protesting peacefully until ANTIFA came along and started the violence. In the melee, another Nazi bast@rd drove his car into the counter-protesters.

Trump came out and said "violence on both sides". As someone who believes that Trump is an immature clown, I believe that he called this out correctly.

If ANTIFA would not have started the violence, there would be no violence. There would be no car massacre. Neo-nazis are a dying breed. ANTIFA ensures that neo-nazi'sm continues to grow and prosper. They will cause many more people to join these movements.

[aygart]

The problem with your arguments is that you are disingenuous.

You state that you want Trump to call out both sides by name, but what you REALLY want is for him to call out the White Nazi group.

@Yehuda57 would you have been okay with him calling out white supremacists but not antifa?

[Yehuda57]

The problem with your arguments is that you are disingenuous.

You state that you want Trump to call out both sides by name, but what you REALLY want is for him to call out the White Nazi group.

I hate Nazi scum as much as anyone else, but I hate ANTIFA too. It's Hitler and Stalin and I hate them both.

The fact of the matter is that the Nazi scumbags were protesting peacefully until ANTIFA came along and started the violence. In the melee, another Nazi bast@rd drove his car into the counter-protesters.

Trump came out and said "violence on both sides". As someone who believes that Trump is an immature clown, I believe that he called this out correctly.

If ANTIFA would not have started the violence, there would be no violence. There would be no car massacre. Neo-nazis are a dying breed. ANTIFA ensures that neo-nazi'sm continues to grow and prosper. They will cause many more people to join these movements.

You ignored my comments about Trump's and America's history. If he truly wanted to condemn Antifa as well, and that was the reason for his "both sides" comment, he could have said so. He specifically avoided mentioning the Nazis because he wants them to keep on believing he is on their side. He is playing the very same identity politics as the left, albeit from a white perspective.

@Yehuda57 would you have been okay with him calling out white supremacists but not antifa?

Yes. There is a history, see above.

It would have been MUCH better had he condemned the Nazis and condemned Antifa and explained how they are two sides of the same coin. Most people don't know anything about Antifa. They think there was a Nazi parade which attacked innocent counter-protesters. He could've used "both sides" if it came with an explanation.

[aygart]

Most people don't know anything about Antifa. They think there was a Nazi parade which attacked innocent counter-protesters. He could've used "both sides" if it came with an explanation.

That is a tremendous issue in itself and quite disingenuous of the media that they are portraying it that way.

[Yehuda57]

That is a tremendous issue in itself and quite disingenuous of the media that they are portraying it that way.

Agreed.

[aygart]

[Dawie]

ag man, this is just like the bad old days with the AWB and MK (ANCs' umkhonto we sizwe)
 

[aygart]

Agreed.

It is also in part a cause of how he reacts.