Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
Now I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember someone saying that folks opposing interracial marriage had all died out somewhere on these forums.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/geo...posed-to-live/

These people raise their children to believe as they do, or else you wouldn't see so many younger racists at rallies like Charlottesville.
You could use the search function for the forums to know for sure.

Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
Mets, constantly asking these kinds of questions about Trump -- and your fellow Republicans -- when you can easily can find the answers yourself on Google in less than ten seconds, is purposefully ignorant at best and openly dishonest at worst.

Meanwhile, people of color are suffering directly while you "debate" and try to pretend that Trump and the Republican party aren't responsible for the recent rise of racist rhetoric and action in and across this nation.

------
"A short history of all the times Donald Trump has retweeted or engaged with white nationalist Twitter accounts"

https://www.indy100.com/article/dona...er-kkk-8830011

----
"On a Wednesday night in June 2015, a 21-year-old white man walked into a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and gunned down nine black parishioners taking part in a weekly Bible study group. Dylann Storm Roof sat quietly with the group for about an hour before taking out his Glock pistol and firing 70 rounds, stopping five times to reload. Court testimony revealed that during the shooting Roof said, “Y’all are raping our white women. Y’all are taking over the world.”

How this horrific violence came to take place traces back to a particularly destructive idea, one as old as the United States itself and rooted in the country’s white supremacy: that black men are a physical threat to white people. The narrative that black men are inherently violent and prone to rape white women, as Roof said during his rampage, has been prevalent for centuries. This idea has served as the primary justification for the need to oppress black people to protect the common — meaning white — good.

Roof saw himself as a victim standing up for oppressed whites, not as an aggressor. He had a racist “awakening” spurred by online research he did about the 2012 murder of the black high-school student Trayvon Martin. As he wrote in his manifesto, the Martin killing “prompted me to type in the words ‘black on white crime’ into Google, and I have never been the same since that day.”

Roof’s internet search quickly led him to the website of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that claims to document an ignored war against whites being waged by violent black people. Google led Roof down a rabbit hole of hate, leaping from one hate site to the next, many filled with “evidence” that black people are pillaging, raping and murdering white people.

“There were pages and pages of these brutal black on White murders,” Roof wrote in his manifesto. “I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored.”

It’s not surprising that a fragile-minded young man who swallowed hate material whole came to see this so-called problem of black-on-white crime as something he had to personally confront. But the resonance of these ideas goes much deeper, infecting the thinking of many prominent people, including public policymakers to this day.

Take then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, who in November 2015 tweeted an image that originated from a neo-Nazi account that made exactly the same point as the hate sites Roof was reading. Filled with bogus crime statistics, the graphic Trump tweeted supposedly showed that black people are uniquely violent. The Washington Post found that the data in Trump’s tweet to be false.



This image, tweeted by then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump on Nov. 22, 2015, originated from a neo-Nazi account. It displays bogus crime statistics.

One of the most exaggerated statistics was about the number of white people killed by other white people. Trump’s tweet claimed the number was 16 percent, while the FBI’s data shows it is 82 percent. The tweet also asserted that 81 percent of whites are killed by black people; the FBI number is 15 percent.

As the Post concluded, “Trump cast blacks as the primary killers of whites, but the exact opposite is true. By overwhelming percentages, whites tend to kill other whites. Similarly, blacks tend to kill other blacks.

These trends have been observed for decades.”

https://www.splcenter.org/20180614/b...ck-white-crime

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...icide-victims/
I'm sticking with the specific goal-posts WBE and jetengine had set.

It's difficult to research the points behind jetengine's point because I'm not one hundred percent sure what he meant. "Trump tweets white nationistic rgetoric and white nationalist groups." I get the idea that he tweets white nationalist rhetoric, which wasn't WBE's original point, but I'm not still not sure what it means to tweet white nationalist groups. Does it mean he retweets their members knowingly? Does it mean he tweets at them specifically? Does it mean he promotes specific groups?

I'll fully admit that I've made typos and unintentionally vague comments in the past, so I'm not claiming that my posts have always been clearer.

The idea that Trump is a white nationalist is a bit fringe. As far as I know, we don't have newspaper editorial boards outright saying it, and it isn't the stated position of the majority of Democratic members of Congress. Some of you have come to this conclusion, and will look at incidents through that lens, so when there's a discussion of a specific situation, you'll see it as something that reinforces an existing view, rather than something worth analyzing in isolation.

Trump has made 5,804 tweets, not including the stuff that he deleted. So some bad comments are inevitable. Granted, his retweets of White GenocideTM and Non-Dildod Goyim (the one with the BS crime stats) are pretty bad.

Quote Originally Posted by ChadH View Post
(1) I'd argue that The President of the United States retweeting any point put out by anyone serves to lend some level of credence to the individual and validation to any other point that individual has posted. What's more it communicates a certain level of tacit consent and approval of that individuals beliefs.

(2) Since when are we conflating professionalism with suspicious behaviour? Trump is an outlier who says whatever pops into his head and the fact that no one in the GOP seems to want to hold him accountable seems more suspicious to me than any whataboutism concerning Hillary Clinton. When the President of the United States tweets or says something, especially if it's related to the economy or foreign relations it has a direct impact on worldwide financial markets. For that reason alone he should've had his twitter membership revoked when it became clear that he wasn't willing to edit his tweets. Why no one in Congress or the Senate has suggested that remains a mystery to me.
1) It certainly is tacit approval for the tweet, but it's not necessarily indicative of agreement with everything the person has ever said. This can set a bad precedent if we can accept that anyone who openly agrees with Ta-Nehisi Coates is an atheist who supports reparations.

2) Trump's on one extreme but a politician implying that a comment that went through ten drafts through twelve advisers represents their unvarnished views is still being quite dishonest, and it's fair to ask what might be so wrong with their actual first impressions on the issues.