Donald Trump needs to be more clear on his position on the Alt Right (1 Viewer)

[ataraxia]

One of the big reasons for so much anxiety and suspicion in the nation against Donald Trump is that much of his rhetoric and actions, both directly and indirectly, have created an air of sanction or support of racism and bigotry against entire very large groups in the nation. His appointment of Steve Bannon, with his previous leadership role in Breitbart, and openly Alt Right venue, has not helped and really raised some red flags. He has said he doesn't know much about the KKK or other racist organizations. He has said he doesn't know David Duke, a former KKK Grand Wizard who endorsed Trump for advancing KKK agendas. Direct attempts to distance the Trump campaign have have usually come indirectly from his spokespeople, not as much himself. Whatever it is, there is still a huge amount of lingering anxiety over where he stands on this issue. And it has created a lot of anxiety and a sense of alienation among many groups in the country. In order to take away some of the tension and anxiety and resistance, he needs to come out and more forcefully spell out where he stands on this issue. He needs to explain why Steve Bannon has been given such a powerful position in the whitehouse. If he thinks Bannon is not really a racist, he needs to come out and say it. I understand that he likes to keep his plans and intentions secret from the enemy. But over half of the population over which he plans to preside is not the enemy. He needs to be more clear and expound in detail where he stands on this issue. Until then, he is going to be met with crippling resistance and suspicion over everything he says and does. If this is really a misunderstanding on the part of his detractors, it needs to be cleared up- in detail, clearly, and forcefully.

 

[Captain Adverse]

One of the big reasons for so much anxiety and suspicion in the nation against Donald Trump is that much of his rhetoric and actions, both directly and indirectly, have created an air of sanction or support of racism and bigotry against entire very large groups in the nation. His appointment of Steve Bannon, with his previous leadership role in Breitbart, and openly Alt Right venue, has not helped and really raised some red flags. He has said he doesn't know much about the KKK or other racist organizations. He has said he doesn't know David Duke, a former KKK Grand Wizard who endorsed Trump for advancing KKK agendas. Direct attempts to distance the Trump campaign have have usually come indirectly from his spokespeople, not as much himself. Whatever it is, there is still a huge amount of lingering anxiety over where he stands on this issue. And it has created a lot of anxiety and a sense of alienation among many groups in the country. In order to take away some of the tension and anxiety and resistance, he needs to come out and more forcefully spell out where he stands on this issue. He needs to explain why Steve Bannon has been given such a powerful position in the whitehouse. If he thinks Bannon is not really a racist, he needs to come out and say it. I understand that he likes to keep his plans and intentions secret from the enemy. But over half of the population over which he plans to preside is not the enemy. He needs to be more clear and expound in detail where he stands on this issue. Until then, he is going to be met with crippling resistance and suspicion over everything he says and does. If this is really a misunderstanding on the part of his detractors, it needs to be cleared up- in detail, clearly, and forcefully.

Correction. HE hasn't created this anxiety; it was created by the blatant bias in Main Stream Media and run with by every media pundit who wanted to see Hillary Clinton elected instead of him.

I'd suggest you do some basic research, and don't believe everything you've heard in the media. I did, and it's why I preferred to vote for him over his opponent in this past election.

 

[Casper]

Correction. HE hasn't created this anxiety; it was created by the Main Stream Media and run with by every pundit who wanted to see Hillary Clinton elected instead of him.

I'd suggest you do some basic research, and don't believe everything you've heard in the media. I did, and it's why I preferred to vote for him over his opponent in this past election.

Whether he created it or not, he is stuck with it, so why not clear the air and tell the People is stand on the issue is he interested in bringing people together or satisfied with the division? In my opinion he would be best served by making a public statement on the topic.

 

[SheWolf]

Correction. HE hasn't created this anxiety; it was created by the blatant bias in Main Stream Media and run with by every media pundit who wanted to see Hillary Clinton elected instead of him.

I'd suggest you do some basic research, and don't believe everything you've heard in the media. I did, and it's why I preferred to vote for him over his opponent in this past election.

I don't watch MSM. I heard Trump's rhetoric out of his own mouth, and saw his rallies on TV. I also share the same concerns with the OP over his cabinent appointments.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I don't watch MSM. I heard Trump's rhetoric out of his own mouth, and saw his rallies on TV. I also share the same concerns with the OP over his cabinent appointments.

Really? Hmm...and can you provide clear examples of his support for racism and bigotry? Because I viewed most of the tapes used to allege his racism and bigotry and I didn't see it...not once. :no:

In fact I posted a number of responses in the Forum to member posts advocating such concerns during the early part of the campaign, after personally reviewing those tapes.

I was not an original supporter, I honestly thought he threw his hat in the ring as a publicity stunt. That he never intended to go all the way, and didn't invest until he saw whatever he was doing was working. I was concerned about all the negative allegations, but when I actually looked at the evidence I discovered it was innuendo and biased reporting.

The fact that some small number of fringe groups supported him, as did some small number of fringe groups (like the American Communist Party) supported Hillary, does not prove guilt by such association. :shrug:

 

[Slyfox696]

Really? Hmm...and can you provide clear examples of his support for racism and bigotry?

I assume we can use Trump's own words, right?

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border | Video | RealClearPolitics

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-of-her-wherever/

That's just a few minutes of research. For what it's worth, I can at least buy his explanation for Megyn Kelly. But there are many other examples.

 

[SheWolf]

Really? Hmm...and can you provide clear examples of his support for racism and bigotry? Because I viewed most of the tapes used to allege his racism and bigotry and I didn't see it...not once. :no:

In fact I posted a number of responses in the Forum from member posts advocating such concerns during the early part of the campaign, after personally reviewing those tapes. I was not an original supporter, not until I did look and discoverer it was all innuendo and biased reporting.

The fact that some small number of fringe groups supported him, as did some small number of fringe groups (like the American Communist Party) supported Hillary, does not prove guilt by such association. :shrug:

I have seen a dozen people do the very thing you're on your toes ready to do right now. The only thing you are capable of demonstrating is that you are comfortable with his divisive statements and rhetoric. The fact is, we both heard the same thing. You can excuse it and support him. He also encoraged violence in his own rallies. I am sure you have no problem with Bannon or the alt right either, but you can't convince me I am concerned because the MSM has mislead me. I don't have cable news. I don't watch MSM.

 

[Mach]

I assume we can use Trump's own words, right? Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border | Video | RealClearPolitics https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-of-her-wherever/ That's just a few minutes of research. For what it's worth, I can at least buy his explanation for Megyn Kelly. But there are many other examples.

This is what people are scared of? Please say it isn't so. He's not politically correct, that's the best you have? Please remember it was a partisan election, the left character assassinated him, just as he did to Hillary, and that's 90% of what it was. I think most liberals are MORE bigoted than these examples, right here on these forums, when they demonize the wealthy, berate the religious, and ridicule the ignorant rural Trump voters (some 25% of the entire U.S. population!). But we should join you in outrage at those tactless Trump remarks and protest him as president? Come on.

 

[Slyfox696]

This is what people are scared of? Please say it isn't so. He's not politically correct, that's the best you have?

If just once a Trump supporter would actually reply to the discussion at hand, instead of inventing a discussion which wasn't being had, I think I might die of shock.

Read again to what I responded and read again what I said. Then post again.

 

[Absentglare]

This is what people are scared of? Please say it isn't so. He's not politically correct, that's the best you have? Please remember it was a partisan election, the left character assassinated him, just as he did to Hillary, and that's 90% of what it was. I think most liberals are MORE bigoted than these examples, right here on these forums, when they demonize the wealthy, berate the religious, and ridicule the ignorant rural Trump voters (some 25% of the entire U.S. population!). But we should join you in outrage at those tactless Trump remarks and protest him as president? Come on.

People who aren't white Christian men have legitimate reasons to be bothered by his statements, just as white Christian men who care about their fellow Americans do.

 

[VanceMack]

I assume we can use Trump's own words, right?

Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border | Video | RealClearPolitics
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-of-her-wherever/

That's just a few minutes of research. For what it's worth, I can at least buy his explanation for Megyn Kelly. But there are many other examples.

Rather than tripping over yourself to declare anythign and everything 'racist' you might have been better served in your research of the facts.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0kkOiAWUCUGcXZaVUItSjhHQVk/view
U.S. GAO - Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs
He DID NOT say Latinos suck. He didnt label Latinos as 'needy'. What he said was 100% correct. The Mexican government is NOT in any way shape or form invested in stemming the flow of illegal immigration. They are NOT sending us their best and brightest. And yes...many of them ARE murderers and rapists. In fact according to FBI sentencing statistics and interpretations AT LEAST 27% in the federal presion system ARE illegal immigrants that happen to be rapists and murderers.

Re Muslims...he said people from countries with a history of wanting to do us harm should not be allowed in til they can be properly vetted. Surely you arent stupid enough to disagree with that statement?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I assume we can use Trump's own words, right?

Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border | Video | RealClearPolitics
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-of-her-wherever/

That's just a few minutes of research. For what it's worth, I can at least buy his explanation for Megyn Kelly. But there are many other examples.

Really? I believe I may have responded to a couple of those in the past. In any case, let me retort.

None of that is "racism." None of that is bigotry.

Example 1. "Mexico is not sending us their best..." Mexico is a nation. Mexican is not a "race," it is a nationality. He also states truly that people crossing the border illegally are criminals since they are violating American law to do so. However, he did not say ALL individuals crossing the border were rapists, drug abusers, and other criminal types. The fact is that many are those things, as proven by crime statistics when they act out here in the USA.

But people with a certain bias focus on this first part and interpret it in the worst possible way, meanwhile ignoring that last little sentence..."and some I assume are good people." At worst this is Nationalism, not racism or innate bigotry.

Example 2. "Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US..." Islam is a religion, not a race. People of all races worship under Islam. Yet there is a clear and present danger of allowing normal, business as usual entry into the USA for foreign nationals who follow Islam. This was clearly demonstrated long before 9/11; or do you not recall all the airline hijacking, bombings, and other acts of terror that occurred long before the fall of the Twin Towers? Do you not see the current horrific examples of unregulated refugee migration in Europe?

Did you also ignore, as usual, the last part of that sentence "until our country's representative can figure out what is going on?" I don't see how a reasonable desire to prevent harms by beefing up the vetting process for immigration/migration from areas which have a significant number of people who hate our nation and want to actively harm us is somehow "bigotry." Again, Nationalism rather than racism or bigotry.

Example 3. "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Wow, there are so many places "wherever" might refer to, yet people of a certain bias will assume the worst. The man was expressing himself about a certain media rep's aggressiveness, and "blood coming out..." is an old euphemism for insane aggressiveness. Hardly proof of sexism or misogyny.

It's all in how one chooses to perceive things, with an open mind or a clear bias. :shrug:

 

[Mach]

People who aren't white Christian men have legitimate reasons to be bothered by his statements, just as white Christian men who care about their fellow Americans do.

Bothered...maybe.

But outrage? Protesting? Calling him a bigot/racist etc.? By that standard, everyone is, and you know it. It's just a partisan character attack, same as always.

How would you rate that vs Hillary's various scandals...that were far more substantial, some of which we never would have known without wikileaks?

Similar level of "bothered", more, less? Please let us know, so far there is no evidence you can be fair-minded on any such issue (unsupported claim!).

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Alt-right is a relatively new term and to be honest, I don't even know what it means. There is now a group or class of people that this term is supposed to apply to. Who are they? What defines them?

I've even noticed that certain right leaning pundits are now using the term alt-left. What's that all about? It wasn't bad enough when we just had liberals vs. conservatives? Now we have to have conservatives vs. alt right, liberals vs. alt left, liberals vs. conservatives, and alt right vs. alt left? Sounds like something Vince McMahon would cook up as a prelude to WrestleMania.

Are there still neocons? What about neolibs? I know there used to be(maybe there still is?) a group called neonazis. Are they still out there? What about neofascists? I heard something about them once but don't recall the details. I'm pretty sure it was bad, though. Anything with "fascist" in it has got to be bad... which brings up an interesting question. Is a neofascist worse than a fascist? What about neonazis? Are they as bad as just plain nazis?

Complex times we are living in...

 

[SheWolf]

Really? I believe I may have responded to a couple of those in the past. In any case, let me retort.

None of that is "racism." None of that is bigotry.

Example 1. "Mexico is not sending us their best..." Mexico is a nation. Mexican is not a "race," it is a nationality. He also states truly that people crossing the border illegally are criminals since they are violating American law to do so. However, he did not say ALL individuals crossing the border were rapists, drug abusers, and other criminal types. The fact is that many are those things, as proven by crime statistics when they act out here in the USA.

But people with a certain bias focus on this first part and interpret it in the worst possible way, meanwhile ignoring that last little sentence..."and some I assume are good people." At worst this is Nationalism, not racism or innate bigotry.

Example 2. "Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US..." Islam is a religion, not a race. People of all races worship under Islam. Yet there is a clear and present danger of allowing normal, business as usual entry into the USA for foreign nationals who follow Islam. This was clearly demonstrated long before 9/11; or do you not recall all the airline hijacking, bombings, and other acts of terror that occurred long before the fall of the Twin Towers? Do you not see the current horrific examples of unregulated refugee migration in Europe?

Did you also ignore, as usual, the last part of that sentence "until our country's representative can figure out what is going on?" I don't see how a reasonable desire to prevent harms by beefing up the vetting process for immigration/migration from areas which have a significant number of people who hate our nation and want to actively harm us is somehow "bigotry." Again, Nationalism rather than racism or bigotry.

Example 3. "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Wow, there are so many places "wherever" might refer to, yet people of a certain bias will assume the worst. The man was expressing himself about a certain media rep's aggressiveness, and "blood coming out..." is an old euphemism for insane aggressiveness. Hardly proof of sexism or misogyny.

It's all in how one chooses to perceive things, with an open mind or a clear bias. :shrug:

That's a lot of excuse making.

 

[Slyfox696]

Rather than tripping over yourself to declare anythign and everything 'racist'

I don't believe I did that. Why are Trump defenders so allergic to facts?

Someone asked for evidence Trump supported bigotry. I gave the examples. I didn't say any and everything was racist, I just said those were examples and there are more examples.

He DID NOT say Latinos suck.

I didn't say he did. I said Trump said Mexico is sending drugs and rapists. Again, facts are important.

What he said was 100% correct.

Oh really? So Judge Curiel cannot be impartial because his family is Mexican? That's correct? Megyn Kelly had blood coming out of whatever? Donald Trump didn't call for a Muslim ban on anyone entering this country?

I'm sorry, do you have a valid response to what I said?

Re Muslims...he said people from countries with a history of wanting to do us harm should not be allowed in til they can be properly vetted. Surely you arent stupid enough to disagree with that statement?

Surely you aren't stupid enough to disagree it's clearly bigotry to single out only one religion?

None of that is "racism." None of that is bigotry.

:lol:

Sure it is.

Example 1. "Mexico is not sending us their best..." Mexico is a nation. Mexican is not a "race," it is a nationality.

White people aren't immigrating to this country from Mexico. It's pretty clear what Donald Trump was saying. He was clearly railing against Hispanic illegal immigrants, accusing Mexico of sending the worst people. In other words, if someone is a Hispanic who crossed the Mexican border, they are rapists, murderers, etc.

It's bigoted. Don't try to pretend it's not.

But people with a certain bias focus on this first part and interpret it in the worst possible way, meanwhile ignoring that last little sentence..."and some I assume are good people." At worst this is Nationalism, not racism or innate bigotry.

"Trump supporters are stupid, they are racists, they are deplorable...and some, I assume, are good people".

You're right, nothing offensive about that at all, right? :roll:

Example 2. "Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US..." Islam is a religion, not a race.

You can be bigoted against a religion. Perhaps you ought to refer to a dictionary.

Did you also ignore, as usual, the last part of that sentence "until our country's representative can figure out what is going on?"

No, I didn't ignore it. It was irrelevant. "All Donald Trump supporters should be locked in mental hospitals until we can figure out if they are truly sane.".

Not offensive at all, correct? :roll:

Example 3. "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Wow, there are so many places "wherever" might refer to, yet people of a certain bias will assume the worst.

As I said, I can buy his explanation on this one. But, given the numerous offensive things he has said against others, including women, it's not unreasonable to assume the worst either.

 

[Absentglare]

Bothered...maybe.

But outrage? Protesting? Calling him a bigot/racist etc.? By that standard, everyone is, and you know it. It's just a partisan character attack, same as always.

How would you rate that vs Hillary's various scandals...that were far more substantial, some of which we never would have known without wikileaks?

Similar level of "bothered", more, less? Please let us know, so far there is no evidence you can be fair-minded on any such issue (unsupported claim!).

I don't think President-Elect Trump is a racist. Honestly, i don't believe that. However, it is absolutely not up for debate that he targeted minorities, namely illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslim immigrants, with his campaign rhetoric. Those are inappropriately large groups to target, in my opinion, and that erodes my confidence in his leadership.

I support people's right to peaceful protest. I condemn criminal behavior, such as rioting and looting, in response to his election.

I don't want to discuss Hillary here, i consider that irrelevant.

 

[Captain Adverse]

That's a lot of excuse making.

Nope, it's a lot of straight talk.

As I said, I was not a Trump supporter originally. My support came from reviewing all the evidence creating the social backlash from media hyping of his alleged positions. I found that if one reviewed the information with an open mind and giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, it was easy to see there was little support for all the demonization of Trump in both MSM and SJW circles.

Demonizing someone in order to categorize, box, and shelve opposing viewpoints as unworthy of further hearing is a big problem in this country. It's what many people tend to do these days. Such people, be they Leftist/Progressive or Right/Conservative do the public a disservice. They claim virtue, then demonize opponents to dismiss them as unworthy of rational discourse. They then shout, disrupt, do anything to silence opposition, and claim victory when their opponents cease responding.

The truth is, those opponents soon learn it is a waste of time trying to argue with someone who refuses to recognize any argument other than their own. Silence does not mean either agreement or defeat. It just signals a recognition that there is no reason to continue to debate, and that action speaks louder than words...as was aptly demonstrated in this most recent election.

Interestingly, this is the source for my signature tagline.

 

[soot]

I assume we can use Trump's own words, right?

Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border | Video | RealClearPolitics
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

Right.

He's calling for an end to ILLEGAL immigration, and to the immigration or granting of refugee status to UNVETTED Muslims.

And he made an offhand comment about some woman.

How in the name of everything common sense does any of that equate to a war against ALL Mexicans, ALL Muslims, ALL African Americans (they're crying like a pack of little girls with a skinned knee too), ALL everybody who isn't a white nationalist member of the KKK?

Not saying that you personally are making any of those claims but you're have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not know that they're being made every day.

But as to your specific claim, how does either of those positions amount to racism and bigotry?

For God's sake, the man has come out and stated plainly that he doesn't have any problem at all with Mexicans, Muslims, immigrants, homosexuals, or women in general.

If he were a racist and a bigot he'd be saying, "Yeah, I hate Mexicans, I hate whoever...".

But he doesn't say anything like that.

Here:

"I employ thousands and thousands of Hispanics. I love the people. They're great workers. They're fantastic people and they want legal immigration."

"I love the Mexican people. I love the spirit of the Mexican people. I love 'em."

"The good people come, and they're great people. They're better than good people. I love the Mexican people. They have tremendous spirit. They have tremendous vibrance and life."

You can go ahead and Google any of those statements, they're all direct Donald Trump quotes.

Again and again throughout his campaign he has made it abundantly clear that his opposition is to ILLEGAL immigration and even in the one deleterious comment you've cited it is CLEAR that he's talking not about Mexicans in general but rather about ILLEGAL immigrants.

But the intellectually dishonest Trump detractors pick that one comment up, out of numerous positive comments, and run with it because it's what suits your agenda.

That's just a few minutes of research. For what it's worth, I can at least buy his explanation for Megyn Kelly. But there are many other examples.

Yet oddly enough these are the only examples that are ever cited.

There are "many" examples of these super-insulting to various identity-politics groups, they're everywhere, but these are the only three that have ever seen the light of day.

I'm not even got to specifically address your baseless claims of anti-Islamic or misogynistic sentiment because they're just as weak as your claim that he's an anti-Mexican bigot or racist.

It is clear, to anyone who isn't blinded by ideological small-mindedness that when he talks about limiting Islamic immigration he's ONLY talking about limiting the granting of refugee status to unknown and unknowable Islamic refugees who cannot be sufficiently vetted - at a point in history when we have been at war with the Arab/Muslim word for a decade and a half.

And as far as his woman-hatred is concerned you'd have to be blind to not see how much he loves and respects his daughters and his wife and how Kellyanne Conway was the first winning female campaign manager in history.

 

[SheWolf]

Nope, it's a lot of straight talk.

As I said, I was not a Trump supporter originally. My support came from reviewing all the evidence creating the social backlash from media hyping of his alleged positions. I found that if one reviewed the information with an open mind and giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, it was easy to see there was little support for all the demonization of Trump in both MSM and SJW circles.

Demonizing someone in order to categorize, box, and shelve opposing viewpoints as unworthy of further hearing is a big problem in this country. It's what many people tend to do these days. Such people, be they Leftist/Progressive or Right/Conservative do the public a disservice. They claim virtue, then demonize opponents to dismiss them as unworthy of rational discourse. They then shout, disrupt, do anything to silence opposition, and claim victory when their opponents cease responding.

The truth is, those opponents soon learn it is a waste of time trying to argue with someone who refuses to recognize any argument other than their own. Silence does not mean either agreement or defeat. It just signals a recognition that there is no reason to continue to debate, and that action speaks louder than words...as was aptly demonstrated in this most recent election.

All you did was dance around the semitics of words like race, nationality, ethnicity, etc. David Duke can just as easily to that with the average Storm Front post.

I think Trump played into people's fears of Islam and scapegoated minorities and foreigners for the economic woes of the working class. Its not demonization. I don't think he is the anti Christ. I am not saying to lock him up, etc. He played to the lowest common denominator. He didn't run on unity. Far from it.

 

[RetiredUSN]

People who aren't white Christian men have legitimate reasons to be bothered by his statements, just as white Christian men who care about their fellow Americans do.

LMAO

I should click the "LIKE" button just for the laughs.


Thank you.

 

[LowDown]

One of the big reasons for so much anxiety and suspicion in the nation against Donald Trump is that much of his rhetoric and actions, both directly and indirectly, have created an air of sanction or support of racism and bigotry against entire very large groups in the nation. His appointment of Steve Bannon, with his previous leadership role in Breitbart, and openly Alt Right venue, has not helped and really raised some red flags. He has said he doesn't know much about the KKK or other racist organizations. He has said he doesn't know David Duke, a former KKK Grand Wizard who endorsed Trump for advancing KKK agendas. Direct attempts to distance the Trump campaign have have usually come indirectly from his spokespeople, not as much himself. Whatever it is, there is still a huge amount of lingering anxiety over where he stands on this issue. And it has created a lot of anxiety and a sense of alienation among many groups in the country. In order to take away some of the tension and anxiety and resistance, he needs to come out and more forcefully spell out where he stands on this issue. He needs to explain why Steve Bannon has been given such a powerful position in the whitehouse. If he thinks Bannon is not really a racist, he needs to come out and say it. I understand that he likes to keep his plans and intentions secret from the enemy. But over half of the population over which he plans to preside is not the enemy. He needs to be more clear and expound in detail where he stands on this issue. Until then, he is going to be met with crippling resistance and suspicion over everything he says and does. If this is really a misunderstanding on the part of his detractors, it needs to be cleared up- in detail, clearly, and forcefully.

Just today in an interview with the New York Times Trump stated that he disavows and condemns the alt-Right. On Bannon he said that if he "thought for a second that he was racist or alt right or any of those things I wouldn't even think about hiring him."

 

[ataraxia]

Breitbart is an openly racist, hateful, bigoted publication, with many articles put out during Bannon's leadership openly hostile to Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, women, etc, etc.... Picking the head of Breitbart news as a top advisor is very, very alarming. I think you can see why. And that's not MSM. You don't have to be biased by MSM to see how alarming that can be to all those groups that are the subject of its hatred. I think you can see why that's not so irrational and far-fetched or falling under the spell of MSM. It seems perfectly natural to be alarmed. It's like putting the head of Pravda as your CIA chief, and telling anyone who raises any alarm that they are victims of MSM and they need to do their own research. If Trump thinks Bannon is not a racist and hateful bigot, he should come out and say exactly why he thinks that. Because I assure you, it's not a natural conclusion that an unbiased observer would make.

 

[dorsai]

Trump is more xenophobic than racist. At this point in our history, that is an expected reaction to the lack of vigilance we as a country have shown over the last 10-15 years. When George W Bush was elected, a fear of "aliens" seemed far-fetched until 9/11 and even afterwards, Bush went out of his way to point towards radical Islamic terror rather than race or countries. Afghanistan and Iraq might argue with that but even so...

Trump's rhetoric primarily goes to citizens vs non-citizens. I believe he honestly sees the non-citizens that are uninvited as a real poison pill. Citizenship should have its privileges and being invited here should have privileges over just being here. Right now, he believes it doesn't. Many -- including myself -- agree with him.

 

[ataraxia]

"On Bannon he said that if he "thought for a second that he was racist or alt right or any of those things I wouldn't even think about hiring him." "

Then he needs to explain WHY the head of the leading media voice of the Alt Right, which has traditionally been a hornet's nest of articles fanning racism, anti-Semitism, anti-women's rights, etc... would not obviously be a racist and bigot. It seems like a natural conclusion to assume he is. It's like thinking that the head of Pravda in the Soviet era would not be a communist. It's a natural conclusion until there is very strong evidence to the contrary. Trump just saying so is not evidence.