You can see Donald Trump denouncing Proud Boys here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc&feature=youtu.be...
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...)
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.