Regarding Trump denouncing white supremacists in the debate…

If you’re a hater, just don’t read, don’t bother. The more I hear and read from haters the more my IQ drops. If you just disagree, fine, but if you think hatred won’t impact your intelligence you are naive. Psychologists calls that common phenomenon “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail”. And the news is fueling it. You can also reference the blind men and the elephant story and the sophistry behind “secret combinations”.

 

You can go watch that part of the debate at this timeframe: 1:08:47 – 1:09:34 in the video at the URL below.

https://youtu.be/fX79e-0RiRU

 

Wallace: “But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups...”

Trump: “Sure”

Wallace: “…and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland”.

Simultaneously:

Wallace: “Are you prepared to specifically … so what are what are you what are you saying?”
Trump: “Sure I’m willing to do that but I would say I would say everything I see is from the left wing not the right wing if you look… I’m willing to do anything… I want to see peace, I… “

Wallace: “Do it do it sir, do it say it do it say it”

Trump: Paused, looked left

Almost simultaneously:

Trump came back and said: “You wanna call ‘em, what do you wanna call ‘em, give me a name give me a name go ahead who would you like me to condemn?”

Wallace: “White supremacists and ??? Proud Boys right ??? militias” (it was hard to discern exactly what Wallace was saying).

Trump: “Proud Boys, stand back and standby, but I’ll tell you what I’ll tell you what somebody’s gotta do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem.”

 

Here is what I saw originally and after going through it again. Trump immediately and generally condemned white supremacists and militia groups with “sure”. Then when Wallace asked, “and to stand down”. Trump wanted to answer that part, but Wallace just badgered. He already condemned with “sure” and before he would tell a group to stand down, he wanted a name. I don’t think he knows of any far-right radical groups involved in the violence, so he was going to call Wallace out.

What he meant was obvious to me. Of course, I take any news coverage of what he says with a grain of salt, and I’ll go watch it. I can follow how his mind works and I ignore the perspectives of the haters. The same went for Obama and Biden. I caught the right claiming things that weren't true.

After going through this part of the debate again, I wondered if Trump ever finished the question. He did and it looks like I was quite close to what his intent was in what he said.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-093020/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-press-secretary-kayleigh-mcenany-100120/

 

Then Biden referred to what the FBI director Chris Wray said Antifa is an ideology not an organization, as if that means they did nothing wrong. Yet they try to recruit on the campuses of colleges and universities. Also, and this is the most important thing to understand is that it was the same for ISIL/ISIS (“ISIS”). They weren’t in America – that organization wasn’t here, only the ideology. What is different is people here that decided to be a lone wolf supporter of ISIS were not funded by ISIS – they acted on their own. With Antifa, they found evidence of it being organized across state lines and funded. There were even suspects admitting they were paid to carry the Antifa symbology and violence. No one knows who. You could blame either side. Show me the data (not news stories – such naivete).

 

Now do I think Trump did well in the debate? No, I don’t think he did. He totally botched it; balked.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

You’re a Person of Color?

I like to begin with first and foremost, so... first and foremost, all people, not just people/person(s) of color (POC), can benefit from reading this. It is because whether we do or do not identify as a POC, we are all people - human beings with common and unique faults, strengths, and weaknesses. What do you do about the bias against you that you experience as a POC? So far, we’ve seen many movements and many efforts to raise awareness, demand justice, and all of that. But that’s not what I’m getting at. What I am asking is what are you doing about you?  Before I continue, I have a few thoughts to share. First, there are always two sides of every experience that seems racially biased: those experiencing the bias and those demonstrating it. Each side of such experiences has components that exist and components that do not exist, in isolation with the other. Such experiences are dynamic largely because of how we are wired to look at the world and how we are wired socially.  Be...
Read more

Risk If True Most Severe Ever

Whether the following is true or not, the scientific community needs to stop being political. If a lab can reproduce the findings of the following controversial paper, under the strict supervision of a trusted entity that will destroy the product after it is reported, then they should. Only then will we know for sure whether the COVID-19 virus was manufactured, helped along to facilitate accelerated mutations using human trials, or actually came from Nature's kitchen. Because if it is true, then we are living under a threat so severe it makes Nagasaki and Hiroshima look like child's play. The preponderance of scientific literature I've been steeped in over the better part of the last two decades goes back nearly a century and documents how easily the Hitler phenomenon and Stanley Milgram phenomenon can occur en mass within society, infecting the public, politicians, business leaders, and especially the media. My own investigations finding repeating but unsubstantiated narra...
Read more

New York Times Life-Long Romance With Communism

If I were the gatekeeper for who gets good or bad repute, I would want to give myself a good one under the auspice of modesty. Would not the newspaper of record, the New York Times, do the same? As is oft said, truth is sometimes too bizarre to be fabricated. And truth must be told as simply and as boldly as possible. We all studied history in school. If we were lucky, we had interest, a good textbook, and a non-boring teacher. But even if we had these three magic ingredients, we couldn’t possibly know what is not directly revealed in the history books. How could we read between lines that were not printed? All this came to mind as I pondered when the New York Times might have lost their way as the newspaper of record – the former noble journalist paradise where fact, not worldview, agenda, and spin ruled. As I revisited history anew, I began to doubt the New York Times ever truly earned such acclaimed magnanimity. It was obvious from my inquiry how powerful the pen was to change t...
Read more