No he didn’t. This is a lie allowed to continue unabated and it’s done an incredible amount of damage to just simple civil dialogue in this country.
For what it's worth, here's how the proud boys interpreted the comment: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/trump-proud-boys-biden...
Is the argument that Trump is racist or right wing? They aren’t the same.
You can argue Proud Boys are right wing if viewing it in relation to Antifa for instance, but they aren’t racists. They are pretty diverse as a group, they just may not hold your values.
KKK and Neo Nazis are not right wing, but they are very racist. Both organizations are historically tied into the democrat party.
It’s the constant conflating of the two that has twisted up people into pretzels and turned this argument into pure trash honestly.
Trump is not going to align with your political values if you are left, but it doesn’t make him a racist.
You can't pretend there isn't systemic racism, and that Trump isn't racist, when he is doing things like that.
There is no other way to interpret that action.
In what world is that not an overt endorsement of Joe Arpaio's Racism?
The right courted the racists. The racists might not be inherently right wing, but the modern right actively seeks their support and will do what the racists want in exchange for tax cuts and forcing women to keep parasites
I see three points in the "grandparent" comment:
1. “The guy had armies of white supremacist supporters and advisers.”
2. “He told right-wing extremists to “stand by” on national TV.”
3. “Every time you gloss over this, you give a pass to it and to those who knew about it and supported him anyway.”
I would consider these the arguments being discussed in this comment tree, not "Trump is racist" or "Trump is ... right wing".
> You can argue Proud Boys are right wing if viewing it in relation to Antifa for instance, but they aren’t racists. They are pretty diverse as a group, they just may not hold your values.
I don't think that even the proud boys would dispute a label of "right wing".
I don't really know how to respond to the claim that they aren't racists. Gavin McInnes is on the record with NBC in 2017 as saying "I’m not a fan of Islam. I think it’s fair to call me Islamophobic." and Islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism.
More recently, Enrique Tarrio has said they're not racist, but they've just gotten more careful with how they express their racism; they use dog whistles and veiled references.
If you look through archives of their early 2019-era merch store, you'll see things like multiple versions of the "Honkler" incarnation of Pepe the Frog — commonly used as a neo-nazi dog whistle, a picture of a black silhouette with the caption "Don't monkey this up, America!" — a reference to the racial slur that Ron DeSantis experienced backlash for using in late 2018, references to lynching, references to QAnon, and a joke about Muhammad being a Pedophile. (You'll also find a pile of sexist and transphobic content.)
> KKK and Neo Nazis are not right wing, but they are very racist.
From the wikipedia page on Neo-Nazism: "Neo-Nazism is considered a particular form of far-right politics and right-wing extremism." (citing: https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/fields-of-work/right-win...)
It's quite possible to be a jew and an anti-semite, a woman and a misogynist, and a non-white white supremacist. It's easy, actually - just define an out-group that, for some contrived bullshit reason or other, doesn't include you.
I'll note that my comment did not directly link proud boys to "white supremacy". Instead, I (and the comment I replied to) used "right-wing extremists". I think that's an accurate description that does not require an assumption that "Western = white".
For anyone curious about their beliefs:
https://proudboysusa.com/tenets/
Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/08/fbi-says-pr...
>https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-fbi-proud-boys-cla...
“In that briefing there was a slide that talked about the Proud Boys,” Cannon said.
The slide was intended to characterize the potential for violence from individual members of the Proud Boys, according to Cannon, and not to address the group as a whole.
“There have been instances where self-identified Proud Boys have been violent,” he said. “We do not intend and we do not designate groups, especially broad national groups, as extremists.”
generally speaking i tend to assume that feds have and always have keep a close watch on pretty much any sizeable right-leaning organization, most especially ones that are frequently involved in street violence with other organizations. maybe this is the legacy of ruby ridge and timothy mcveigh, maybe it just looks good on a quarterly review. but even aside from that you can find plenty of accounts over the years from BLM and occupy activists about being surveilled. how many of these are credible? it is hard to say. we do know that there has been a large injection of funds for the purpose of increased surveillance following months of blm related riots
>https://theintercept.com/2020/09/13/police-surveillance- technology-operation-legend/
personally i believe the fbi that went after the black panthers and mlk is not materially different from the fbi of today and should be treated with heavy skepticism no matter what your political leanings.
this becomes a problem as well, proud boys have been involved in violence... against other groups who were also actively seeking to enforce street violence. is this the result of a concerted campaign or does a group founded around crudity and bravado attract absolute knuckledragging choads who are likely to get into fistfights?
You can see Donald Trump denouncing Proud Boys here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc&feature=youtu.be...
Painting it as some siren call for white supremacist supporters to rise up and take the nation by force is just as disingenuous and hypocritical as Trump himself.
1. Say that he didn't know who the Proud Boys are. Even the most generous interpretation of this doesn't look good. He was asked to denounce them during the debate and either (a) attempted to do so (fumbling the response) without knowing who they were or (b) it was an intentional dodge — and either way, he didn't follow up with his staff to learn more.
2. Say that they need to "stand down" and "let law enforcement do their work", but not condemn them (i.e., still fall short of the ask during the debate, when given a chance to correct the fumbled response).
3. Dodge an explicit question about whether he misspoke when he said "stand by" (again, failing to fully correct the fumbled response).
4. Continue to shift away from criticism of right-wing groups to left-wing groups.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-pres...
> Painting it as some siren call for white supremacist supporters to rise up and take the nation by force is just as disingenuous and hypocritical as Trump himself.
When right-wing groups interpret it as a siren call and he fails to unequivocally correct that interpretation, it's not disingenuous to be concerned.
He's the type of person that screams until he's blue in the face that water isn't wet, simply because someone not on Team Trump said that it is. That doesn't mean he's some secret conspiratorial white supremacist talking in code. It just means he's a juvenile idiot.
I'm not saying that the second is somehow better than the first. It's not. They're both equally despicable and I have zero respect for Trump being the former. But it's equally reprehensible to have a crowd on the sidelines chomping at the bit to exaggerate, fabricate or concoct stories, simply because they don't like someone.
It's "he's not our guy, so the end justifies the means", and it's an incredibly disturbing trend that goes beyond Trump.
> ...
> But it's equally reprehensible to have a crowd on the sidelines chomping at the bit to exaggerate, fabricate or concoct stories, simply because they don't like someone.
I'm confused. Where in this comment chain does what you describe seem to be happening? The closest I can find is the great-great-great-great grandparent, which states “The guy had armies of white supremacist supporters and advisers. He told right-wing extremists to “stand by” on national TV.”
From my perspective, the key here is that right-wing extremists interpreted his words as code — and he refused to correct that interpretation. From the point of view of the extremists, it was intentional, and that's enough to embolden them.
Even though it was likely the result of a mistake and stubbornness, it was damaging to the country and the impacts are worth acknowledging.
At this risk of taking a bit of a tangent: it's not as if this is the only time his carelessness with his words and stubbornness to correct the way they were interpreted caused problems. In those cases too, we need to acknowledge both the cause and the effect. Accidentally causing damage and intentionally causing damage are distinct problems, but they're both problems — especially when you're the leader of a country.
There was torrential, indignant outcry on my Twitter feed that Trump was literally sending the message to armed white supremacist militias to standby and that they would be called upon to take arms shortly.
But even that GP comment is a good example. "He told right-wing extremists to stand by" - is a partial truth at best. Either way, it's misleading. Why did GP choose the words "stand by" and omit the words "stand back"? Because s/he wanted to paint Trump as a racist, and the latter didn't fit the narrative. It's intellectually dishonest.
> At this risk of taking a bit of a tangent: it's not as if this is the only time his carelessness with his words and stubbornness to correct the way they were interpreted caused problems. In those cases too, we need to acknowledge both the cause and the effect. Accidentally causing damage and intentionally causing damage are distinct problems, but they're both problems — especially when you're the leader of a country.
In this respect, I agree completely. I'm not saying that puerile stubborness is somehow any better than militant white supremacy. If his speaking carelessly causes issues, it is certainly his responsibility to undeniably, unconditionally refute it.
My gripe is with the continual exaggeration, misrepresentation and outright misinformation from the anti-Trump brigade. Any facts which don't fit the narrative are conveniently discarded. It's not limited to Trump, either. Countless people described the Kenosha shooter as firing indiscriminately and unprovoked into a crowd, which is a patently absurd distortion of reality. Or the complete fiction that Nick Sandmann (the kid in the MAGA hat) approached the Native American guy and start making racist taunts.
Many Anti-Trumpers are hypocritically engaging in exactly the same dishonest behaviour as Trump/Trumpists. Frankly, I don't believe anything I read any more, and that's an absolute travesty.
The whole premise of the question (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHhB1ZMV_o) was his criticism of Biden for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups, and whether he'd be willing to "condemn white supremacists and militia groups" and "say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence".
Mistake or not, he didn't condemn the proud boys during the debate. If it was his intent to do so, when it became clear that large portions of the country misunderstood his remarks — including the proud boys themselves — he should have clearly communicated his intended message, instead of dodging questions about his remarks for 2 days. (See, e.g., https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-pres...)
I lean more conservative and had my own issues with Trump and his presidency, but I looked at his policy, words, and his actions. I still voted for him because I felt he aligned with the policies I wanted to move towards.
Falling into such a blatant lie about his racism though exposes any person that keeps repeating it as intellectually weak, easily manipulated, and wholly dishonest.
Frankly, I’m disappointed to see it repeated and upvoted on Hacker News. I come here to see intellectual comments and discussion, not low brow Twitter and Reddit garbage.
Personally I listened to when he said "stand back, stand by".
It's just more inane rambling
good people on both sides? STIll saying the Central Park Five are guilty - originally paying to advocate the death penalty? Being the #1 pusher of Obama birther-ism? and so so so much more here is just one list of the worse: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-r...
You mean like actively refusing and convincing ~half the country NOT to wear masks? Even though the worst case scenario is.. you are wearing the mask and it doesn't help?
Trump himself said he thinks wearing a mask looks weak. And that's why he didn't want to do it.
So, instead of being a LEADER and leading by example- wearing a mask. He made it into a political issue because he thinks people looks weak doing it. And has no doubt cost peoples lives by CONVINCING others not to wear masks. To this day (in his recent rallies) it's the same damn thing.
I mean, I can go on and on about the CHARACTER of Trump, but let's leave it at one.
You sound like someone who is like "eh I like his policies so he can act however the hell he wants and that's OK".
THAT is what you and I can never agree on.