Trump Consciousness

How am I trolling?
Because you are pretending you can't understand a verbal conversation between people. Perhaps its simply a limitation you have personally, I don't know. What I can tell you is that you should expand your supposed "evidence" to include how people interpret what other people say. Cherry picking two lines from a transcript isn't evidence K9. Hence, you're outrageous trolling or interpersonal communication skills limitations.

I certainly hope you don't take only my word for it and instead look at the facts regarding what various political groups beleive.
Oh, don't worry. I'm not taking your word for it. I'm curious what evidence or experience you are relying upon to have such a strong position on this group's beliefs. That was all.

What is your definition of a "White Supremacist" ?
Does it really matter? I guess I'll play along if you're willing to respond in kind, although I think you've made your views known on this topic in the past. This could get interesting.

I'd define a white supremacist as someone who believes that Caucasians are superior to non-Caucasians (in how ever one might define "superior"). A dangerous white supremacist would be someone with said beliefs that is seeking to change our society to align with their view.
 
I've listened to the full debate. I've watched the clip. Plus I've read the transcript. I don't see Trump refusing to condemn WS. You haven't provided a quote to show where he does that either.
He was asked if he was willing to condemn WS. He said "sure". His response, as any elementary school child would know, was an affirmative to the question: That he would be willing to condemn WS. He was subsequently asked to do as he indicated he was willing. (Again, this is so simple as to validate you're status as a troll). He did not go on to condemn WS.

Here's the exact transcript (in blue font with bold being my emphasis):

Wallace: "You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left wing extremist groups. But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group 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."

Trump: "Sure, I'm will to do that."

So, at this stage he has answered affirmatively as to his willingness to condemn. This is not the condemnation itself as anyone with a 6th grade education can plainly see. There's no ambiguity here. Regardless, Wallace (who understands the English language) goes on to ask the next, logical question as his first was a prelude to:

Wallace: "Are you prepared specifically to do it?"

Trump: "I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing not from the right wing."

Wallace: "But what are you saying?"

Trump: "I'm willing to do anything. I want to see peace."

Wallace: "Well, do it, sir."

Here's the direct request from Wallace. There's nothing vague about this. This is what he ultimately "refuses"; he refuses to do what he told Wallace he was willing to do and subsequently asked by Wallace directly to do.

Biden: "Say it, do it say it."

Trump: "What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead who do you want me to condemn."

Wallace: "White supremacist and white militia."

Biden: "Proud Boys."

Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what somebody's got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem this is a left wing."

He never condemns anything or anyone in this exchange. It just doesn't happen. He indicates he's willing to with the "sure" you are so fixated on, but then declines to actually do it (condemn) afterwards. Its clear, its plain, its commonly understood. Again, there is no ambiguity in any of this.

If you are saying that he refused to condemn the Proud Boys, and you have evidence that they are WS, then you need to show evidence that they are indeed WS. You haven't done that.
Irrelevant as I've told you time and time again. See the above as to why.

You have very strong beliefs about this topic, but beliefs are not facts, nor are they informed by facts. Beliefs are not a strong basis for a convincing argument.
Look in the mirror K9 and you'll find the irrational actor with strong beliefs that is disconnected from reality. Sorry, you're just wrong here. It isn't even a matter of opinion. You are just factually wrong.

I do think the impasse here is due to the fact that you are expressing your beliefs while others are considering factual evidence. Apples and oranges.
The impasse here is your intellectual dishonesty. Nothing more.
 
I'd define a white supremacist as someone who believes that Caucasians are superior to non-Caucasians (in how ever one might define "superior"). A dangerous white supremacist would be someone with said beliefs that is seeking to change our society to align with their view.

Ah. Thank you.

Do you believe the Proud Boys are a White Supremacist group?
 
He states three times that he is willing to condemn WS. He has made that same statement to the very person doing the moderation in previous debates. (See 4:29 on video).


What you are doing is called gaslighting. Trump has repeatedly said in the past that he is against WS and WS groups. It doesn't matter how many times he says it, you don't acknowledge the fact that it has been said. Maybe you just are not able to see what is there.

It was inappropriate for Biden to interject the name of the Proud Boys into the question being asked by the moderator, since they are not a WS group. That confuses the conversation somewhat, because it's like being asked "what is your favorite vegan meal", and then having someone interrupt the conversation with, "It's a steak, isn't it?".

Trump was also correct in pointing out that the vast majority of the violence in cities is being done by Antifa.

Biden lied when he stated that Antifa was "just an idea". Doesn't that concern you?
Stay on topic K9. You asked: "I've listened to the full debate. I've watched the clip. Plus I've read the transcript. I don't see Trump refusing to condemn WS. You haven't provided a quote to show where he does that either."

I've responded. Contest it further or concede the point. I won't engage with you further until you do.
 
You proved my point. He says sure three times. He never once refused to condemn WS. You lose.
Comical. Its the purest form of weakness to be unable to admit a mistake. I'm done with you; zero integrity and intellectual rigor.
 
Seriously, this is very suspicious after being so far behind in the polls and blowing the first debate. Let’s await the proposal that the election be suspended...
 
The more hatred there is for Whiteness, the more White People will appreciate Whiteness and work to preserve Whiteness.
Ah, got it. Now its coming back (our previous conversations).

You're fighting a losing, and meaningless, battle I'm afraid. The world is becoming more and more multi-racial. Its a non-issue to my view over a large arch of time. Add to that the views of younger people who have grown much more racially tolerant. I live in an affluent Midwestern suburb. School district is highly rated. Our specific school is zoned in such a way as to include a fair amount of multi-family housing which is accessible to families of more modest economic means. Thus, our high school is highly diverse. There's no indication of anyone fighting to "maintain" whiteness. Hell, one of the highlight days of the school year that kids talk the most about is a "cafe" day where families are encouraged to bring their favorite dishes to school for a rather large potluck. With the diversity at our school the food is fantastic and wide ranging. Kids and parents rave about it. Its not just 1,000 dishes of mac 'n cheese. ;)

I'm old enough to remember when Americans of varying European ancestry were debating superiority and now allowing the young adult children to have romantic relationships with perceived "inferior" Euro backgrounds. Ask someone born after 1970 if they knew that was a thing at one time. They'd not even understand the perspective. Ethnic jokes about Italians, Germans, Polish, etc used to be told with regularity. Again, can't tell you the last time I heard one. I watched it sort of die out as folks started telling those jokes from a place of earnest humor and mirth vs a discriminatory perspective. This happened, in my view, because of proximity. Italians got to know Polish, Irish got to know Germans, etc. What did they find? They're just people. Same general goals and objectives: freedom, love, family, work.

Step into the light Charlie; the water's warm. ;)
 
Ah. Now I see the source of your virtue signalling.

You still live in a majority White environment, and have yet to enjoy the levels of Diversity we have here in Houston.

Thus, you can still maintain the egalitarian multi-culty fantasy fed to you by television and movies.
 
Ah. Now I see the source of your virtue signalling.

You still live in a majority White environment, and have yet to enjoy the levels of Diversity we have here in Houston.

Thus, you can still maintain the egalitarian multi-culty fantasy fed to you by television and movies.
Why live there then? There's plenty of "whiteness" groups across the U.S. that would seem thrilled to take you in. Granted, living in a tent might not be that appealing.

Point is there is no support for your movement beyond extremists. You picked the wrong country to be born in if you were seeking "whiteness". We're the melting pot bro!
 
Why live there then? ...We're the melting pot bro!

I have Elders to care for who can't move. After they are gone I will move to Colorado Springs.

The fact that you don't even know the "melting pot" is now considered an artifact of White Supremacy further illustrates how insulated and out of touch with reality you are in your nice White environment.

You really do need to attend some Diversity training classes to get up to speed on the latest in Critical Race Theory all good Leftists are supposed to espouse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
 
Back
Top