Nobody in Pittsburgh wants Trump to come

[Famous Mortimer]

The whole of the whining of "Trump's Rhetoric" in this thread, as far as I'm concerned, is an attempt for people to try to get political advantage from an atrocity without getting caught at it.  Now this is a site for political junkies, so I'm not going to give my best ProudModerate2 "DISGUSTING!" on it, but let's get real here.  Folks here are hoping for a boost to Democrats on the midterms as a result of this, but they don't want to get caught "politicizing a tragedy".  Yet that's what folks are doing here. 

Trump's rhetoric is what it is.  Was it Trump who said, "When they go low, we kick them!"?  (No, that was Eric Holder, a former Attorney General.)  Was it Trump who said, "You cannot be civil to Republicans!"?  (No, that was Hillary Clinton, the most recent Democratic Presidential nominee.)  Was it Trump that described one-quarter of the electorate as "Deplorable"?  No, that was Hillary Clinton as well.

I was alive during the Civil Rights Movement.  I'll grant you that Trump's comments were confusing, and he should have stuck to his first statement and left it at that (calling for a return to Law and Order), but it has never been comparable to the rhetoric of those opposed to Civil Rights demonstrators.  Those were unqualified denouncements of the demonstrators.  Those referred to the demonstrators as Communists, and Communist-inspired; there were not "good people on either side".  Why did Trump make such a statement?  Perhaps, it was to encourage the restoration of order.  Such statements did not occur during the Civil Rights Movement, because THOSE politicians were truly OK with what Mike Royko described as "the worst elements of Southern beer-belly manhood (being) allowed to provide the response". 

It's too much, I suppose, to ask for perspective on this aspect of the matter.  After all, if Attorney Generals and Presidential candidates can't do better, why should I expect more from the bulk of Atlas?  I suppose I ought to develop reasonable expectations.

Honestly, I think you're being a little bit tone deaf here. We are currently in the fall out of a far right terrorist attack that targetted and killed 11 Jews. I think, at this point it is quite important to actually start listening to the community that was targetted. So when you even have posters like David who are not just conceding, but volunteering their concerns about the effect that Trump's election and surrounding right-wing rhetoric have had on emboldening anti-semitic sections of the right; then it is time to listen.

I mean, as a comparison, when the Corbyn anti-semitism scandal first emerged, my first reaction was to jump to his defence and shout about right wing attacks and whatever; but I have revised my opinion since - and alot of that is down to reading and seeing how Jewish posters on here have reacted to the scandal. When a community is physically being targetted, we listen to them, and don't assume on their behalf. What we especially don't do, is pull out the "some of my best friends are Jewish" line, which is both insenstive and demeaning, in particular because it is always possible to find the examples of people who think differently in any community.

So considering where we are, and the fact that people are frightened and emotional - now is absolutely the time to start talking about Trump's rhetoric and whether it has emboldened and empowered violent anti-semitism on the right.

If we reacted to this terrorist attack the way we reacted to terrorist attacks carried out by Muslim individuals, we would not be focuses on the victims at all and would talking about the need to protect white people from backlash.

[Famous Mortimer]

You guys realize when you say things like "the president encourages anti-Semitic violence by opposing immigration" you're linking Jewish people and immigration? Isn't that supposed to be a conspiracy theory?

[Famous Mortimer]

The whole of the whining of "Trump's Rhetoric" in this thread, as far as I'm concerned, is an attempt for people to try to get political advantage from an atrocity without getting caught at it.  Now this is a site for political junkies, so I'm not going to give my best ProudModerate2 "DISGUSTING!" on it, but let's get real here.  Folks here are hoping for a boost to Democrats on the midterms as a result of this, but they don't want to get caught "politicizing a tragedy".  Yet that's what folks are doing here. 

Trump's rhetoric is what it is.  Was it Trump who said, "When they go low, we kick them!"?  (No, that was Eric Holder, a former Attorney General.)  Was it Trump who said, "You cannot be civil to Republicans!"?  (No, that was Hillary Clinton, the most recent Democratic Presidential nominee.)  Was it Trump that described one-quarter of the electorate as "Deplorable"?  No, that was Hillary Clinton as well.

I was alive during the Civil Rights Movement.  I'll grant you that Trump's comments were confusing, and he should have stuck to his first statement and left it at that (calling for a return to Law and Order), but it has never been comparable to the rhetoric of those opposed to Civil Rights demonstrators.  Those were unqualified denouncements of the demonstrators.  Those referred to the demonstrators as Communists, and Communist-inspired; there were not "good people on either side".  Why did Trump make such a statement?  Perhaps, it was to encourage the restoration of order.  Such statements did not occur during the Civil Rights Movement, because THOSE politicians were truly OK with what Mike Royko described as "the worst elements of Southern beer-belly manhood (being) allowed to provide the response". 

It's too much, I suppose, to ask for perspective on this aspect of the matter.  After all, if Attorney Generals and Presidential candidates can't do better, why should I expect more from the bulk of Atlas?  I suppose I ought to develop reasonable expectations.

Honestly, I think you're being a little bit tone deaf here. We are currently in the fall out of a far right terrorist attack that targetted and killed 11 Jews. I think, at this point it is quite important to actually start listening to the community that was targetted. So when you even have posters like David who are not just conceding, but volunteering their concerns about the effect that Trump's election and surrounding right-wing rhetoric have had on emboldening anti-semitic sections of the right; then it is time to listen.

I mean, as a comparison, when the Corbyn anti-semitism scandal first emerged, my first reaction was to jump to his defence and shout about right wing attacks and whatever; but I have revised my opinion since - and alot of that is down to reading and seeing how Jewish posters on here have reacted to the scandal. When a community is physically being targetted, we listen to them, and don't assume on their behalf. What we especially don't do, is pull out the "some of my best friends are Jewish" line, which is both insenstive and demeaning, in particular because it is always possible to find the examples of people who think differently in any community.

So considering where we are, and the fact that people are frightened and emotional - now is absolutely the time to start talking about Trump's rhetoric and whether it has emboldened and empowered violent anti-semitism on the right.

If we reacted to this terrorist attack the way we reacted to terrorist attacks carried out by Muslim individuals, we would not be focuses on the victims at all and would talking about the need to protect white people from backlash.

That's completely absurd illogic seeing as

2. No-one is using this attack to make deranged assumptions about "white people" in the way that attacks by islamists are used to make inferences about "muslims"

They use it to make assumptions about Trump supporters, which is more or less white people, certainly people on the left view "white people" and "Trump supporter" more or less interchangeably.