Nobody in Pittsburgh wants Trump to come

[ProudModerate2]

Words matter, especially coming from someone in a position of authority. Even if this shooter wasn't motivated by Trump it is still not healthy for the President of the United States to go on rants that could inflame the fringe. If Obama had taken the same sort of path and someone shot up an evangelical church or sent pipe bombs to his political detractors he would have been held to task for all of that. And remember, Trump did say on the trail twice that somebody should shoot Hillary Clinton and although that did not happen it was still a clear call for incitement that was unacceptable.

The fringe, like this guy, doesn't need to be inflamed by any comment.

And the use of deflection to facts continues from JJ.
What a shock.

[Gass3268]

This happened today, after the Pittsburgh shooting:

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1056324117329297409

[J. J.]

Words matter, especially coming from someone in a position of authority. Even if this shooter wasn't motivated by Trump it is still not healthy for the President of the United States to go on rants that could inflame the fringe. If Obama had taken the same sort of path and someone shot up an evangelical church or sent pipe bombs to his political detractors he would have been held to task for all of that. And remember, Trump did say on the trail twice that somebody should shoot Hillary Clinton and although that did not happen it was still a clear call for incitement that was unacceptable.

The fringe, like this guy, doesn't need to be inflamed by any comment.

And the use of deflection to facts continues from JJ.
What a shock.

You have got to be joking. 

[ProudModerate2]

In the other thread regarding the MAGA Bomber with mail bombs, we had blue-avatar Atlas member Mitt Romney's Hair(GOP_Represent) saying this ...

Anyway, this will be out of the news cycle tomorrow, and we'll be back to the Caravan and whatever else pops up on the radar. With still 11 days to go to the actual election, this will have no measurable impact whatsoever. And nor should it.

The Nazi scumbag who did all the killing today, did this (partially) because of the trump-hate rhetoric surrounding the "caravan of immigrants."
And we have this Atlas user hoping, practically begging, that this nation continues to hear and concentrate on the hate for the caravan, all in hopes of better "election" results for his side "11 days" from now.
Absolutely Deplorable and disgusting.

[J. J.]

In the other thread regarding the MAGA Bomber with mail bombs, we had blue-avatar Atlas member Mitt Romney's Hair(GOP_Represent) saying this ...

Anyway, this will be out of the news cycle tomorrow, and we'll be back to the Caravan and whatever else pops up on the radar. With still 11 days to go to the actual election, this will have no measurable impact whatsoever. And nor should it.

The Nazi scumbag who did all the killing today, did this (partially) because of the trump-hate rhetoric surrounding the "caravan of immigrants."
And we have this Atlas user hoping, practically begging, that this nation continues to hear and concentrate on the hate for the caravan, all in hopes of better "election" results for his side "11 days" from now.
Absolutely Deplorable and disgusting.

Not quite, if I understand the guy's tweets correctly.

He was opposed to the caravan, in part at least, because he thought HIAS was behind it.  He posted that HIAS “likes to bring in invaders that kill our people.”   

It is a common antisemitic theme that Jews use other groups to carry out their "plan." If you google "How the Jews weaponized Blacks," you can see an example of the philosophy.  You can also see it here:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Racial_Program_for_the_Twentieth_Century

It does occur on the left as well.  Farrakhan actually said Mexico was run by Mexican Jews.   https://www.adl.org/blog/farrakhan-rails-against-jews-israel-and-the-us-government-in-wide-ranging-saviours-day-speech

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Right wing anti-Semitism at work it looks like. Not a surprise. David and Ray had better wake up and smell the coffee.

We know exactly what the far right is capable of. You're the one who refuses to see what your own side's extremists want to do to us.

Also, I'm not reading the next twelve pages tonight, but I hope everyone suitably told you off for trying to make this about you.

[America Needs R'hllor]

If your initial reaction to a terrorist attack in a house of worship is to bring up this “both sides” bullsh**t, you’re not a “centrist” or a “moderate” but, rather plainly, an “idiot.” If the discourse on this forum is so offensive to you, you always have the option to stop using it — not so lucky are the victims of this horrific attack whose lives have been taken partly thanks to the normalization of extremist, far-right, Nazi rhetoric.

This. In fact, if that is your initial reaction, I'd say you're one of the biggest partisan hacks on the forum, which is especially bad hiding behind muh centrism.

Anyway:

Words matter, especially coming from someone in a position of authority. Even if this shooter wasn't motivated by Trump it is still not healthy for the President of the United States to go on rants that could inflame the fringe. If Obama had taken the same sort of path and someone shot up an evangelical church or sent pipe bombs to his political detractors he would have been held to task for all of that. And remember, Trump did say on the trail twice that somebody should shoot Hillary Clinton and although that did not happen it was still a clear call for incitement that was unacceptable.

The fact that this needs to be said and some Republican partisans still find fault with it is astounding.

Right wing anti-Semitism at work it looks like. Not a surprise. David and Ray had better wake up and smell the coffee.

We know exactly what the far right is capable of. You're the one who refuses to see what your own side's extremists want to do to us.

Also, I'm not reading the next twelve pages tonight, but I hope everyone suitably told you off for trying to make this about you.

I just ignored him tbh. Someone whose first reaction to a thread about increasing antisemitic online attacks was slandering the ADL doesn't deserve the attention.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Wow, this week has been REALLY bad for the right! Not only has their "violent and angry left-wing mob" narrative completely collapsed, but they've been exposed as the violent ones! Thoughts and prayers go out to alt-right twitter!

[Hammy]

Unpopular opinion here, on the political aspects (beyond the obvious motive)--blaming Trump is not going to solve anything here, as much as I don't want to come off as defending him (which I really don't.) While Trump clearly inspired the mail bombs (as they were sent to people he named), this country unfortunately has a deeply ingrained antisemitic culture that has existed long before the Trump cult.

His reaction after was piss poor and shows he clearly doesn't care, but to claim Trump inspired this particular murder spree implies that these sorts of antisemites wouldn't exist otherwise, or wouldn't act otherwise, which is at best naive and at worst ignorant, as the 1990s clearly showed us, and it's highly likely this guy came into these views during that time.

And the constant back and forth blame game here is doing nothing but making it all about you to score cheap political points, which is no different than what Trump does, and pretending this is some new problem and that these killers would otherwise lead peaceful lives, and ultimately takes the responsibility for their long-standing views and actions off their shoulders.

[Calthrina950]

This thread has degenerated even further over the past few hours, with comments continuing to attack me and others for trying to present a reasoned perspective on these issues. People have continued to embark upon a great endeavor to politicize this issue, expressing opinions that are way over the line, and attacking any who deviate from those opinions. Throughout, I have emphasized that extremism exists on both ends of the political spectrum. Anti-semitism is reprehensible, no matter what form it is expressed in, and the violent massacre at this synagogue should not have occurred. But at the same time, I've been trying to warn people from turning this into a tool with which to hit their political opponents with. Unfortunately, people on here have not heeded that advice.

[(no subject)]

Here's a little motto Trump might want to try out: "Hail Victory!" His supporters could chant it, maybe. With their arms up, to show enthusiasm.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Words matter, especially coming from someone in a position of authority. Even if this shooter wasn't motivated by Trump it is still not healthy for the President of the United States to go on rants that could inflame the fringe. If Obama had taken the same sort of path and someone shot up an evangelical church or sent pipe bombs to his political detractors he would have been held to task for all of that. And remember, Trump did say on the trail twice that somebody should shoot Hillary Clinton and although that did not happen it was still a clear call for incitement that was unacceptable.

The fact that this needs to be said and some Republican partisans still find fault with it is astounding.

I would definitely agree that Trump rhetoric has not been more healthy,  has been divisive and horrible in general.(Thats the reason I will very likely not vote for Him 2020)


What I 100% thing is wrong is blaming him for the attacks as the only person who deserves the blame is the terrorist himself.

[(no subject)]

Of course there won't be a direct line between people who commit these acts and Trump. That's the entire point of stochastic terrorism. It's about creating an environment in which *someone* will be moved to violence, while maintaining distance and refusing accountability.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Words matter, especially coming from someone in a position of authority. Even if this shooter wasn't motivated by Trump it is still not healthy for the President of the United States to go on rants that could inflame the fringe. If Obama had taken the same sort of path and someone shot up an evangelical church or sent pipe bombs to his political detractors he would have been held to task for all of that. And remember, Trump did say on the trail twice that somebody should shoot Hillary Clinton and although that did not happen it was still a clear call for incitement that was unacceptable.

The fact that this needs to be said and some Republican partisans still find fault with it is astounding.

I would definitely agree that Trump rhetoric has not been more healthy,  has been divisive and horrible in general.(Thats the reason I will very likely not vote for Him 2020)


What I 100% thing is wrong is blaming him for the attacks as the only person who deserves the blame is the terrorist himself.

Of course, but some partisans are deflecting even from the fact that his rhetoric has been so terrible. That's one of the reasons I switched my avatar- most Republicans, especially outside the forum, completely ignore the influence the movement he embraced has on America and the world for sweet tax cuts and judges. If a leftist called for his political opponents to be jailed, refused to disavow antisemites and incited against figures which would then be sent bombs by one of his supporters, I'd never vote for him, even for same-sex marriage in Israel or something else I really personally want.

[IceAgeComing]

Anti-semitism is one of those things that a lot of us have been able to think was effectively gone: only something that cranks believe.  I think that the events of the last few years and especially this have woken a lot of people up; including myself.  It is important that we call out anti-semitism wherever we see it since that is probably the only vaguely effective way that vaguely ordinary people can prevent this sort of sh**t from happening.  I think that you have to the people around you though: may it be the people that you are politically involved with or your own family and friends.  In that regard I'm always going to be more critical of left-wing anti-semitism since those are people that I am theoretically closer to and I'd rather not have that crap further infest political communities that I support.  Talking a lot about the problems of the neighbours side while ignoring the leaking roof in your own house is something that isn't exactly going to benefit anyone: eventually you'll have to pay a lot more to fix the damage that you've ignored, and the neighbour will probably be affected by that leak and after that is probably a lot less likely to listen to your criticism of his house.

However since this attack was committed by a Nazi I think that it should be natural that the focus is on anti-semitism from the right; after all that is what caused this attack.  The normalisation of anti-semitic rhetoric in certain parts of the right is something which is very, very worrying and as David said its starting to bleed out of the sections of the right that no one really wants to be associated with to more... respectable, for lack of a better word, bits.  Rhetoric that a few years ago would have been outright rejected or at least led to very awkward silence is now tolerated a lot more and that isn't a good thing since by tolerating that sort of speech you effectively normalise it.  And that can lead to people like this evil man thinking that major political figures who've flirted with that sort of speech actually agrees with them which can weirdly end up radicalising them further.  Add in the right wing press which has shifted in a direction which seems to agree with a fair few anti-semitic tropes (the Soros stuff is the major one; Breitbart's weird focus on some Jewish organisations, etc) and you have an environment which is more friendly towards anti-semites and it should be no surprise that they've started to be more open.  Its the job of all of us to make sure that it doesn't become further normalised.

This thread has degenerated even further over the past few hours, with comments continuing to attack me and others for trying to present a reasoned perspective on these issues. People have continued to embark upon a great endeavor to politicize this issue, expressing opinions that are way over the line, and attacking any who deviate from those opinions. Throughout, I have emphasized that extremism exists on both ends of the political spectrum. Anti-semitism is reprehensible, no matter what form it is expressed in, and the violent massacre at this synagogue should not have occurred. But at the same time, I've been trying to warn people from turning this into a tool with which to hit their political opponents with. Unfortunately, people on here have not heeded that advice.

11 people were murdered by a Nazi just for being Jewish.  This is not equatable in any way to people being mean towards a dumb person on the internet who tries to deemphasise the political component of that violence and suggest that the average poster on this forum is equivalent to the evil man who murdered these people is incredibly, mindblowingly insulting.  To try and claim that the way that you have been treated on an internet forum is at all equatable to anti-semitic murder is disgusting and shows the massively misplaced ego that you have about yourself.  Not everything is about you and by claiming it is you show how little you care about others and how much you care only about yourself.

[afleitch]

Soros is the big lipped, hook nosed, money grabbing covetous Jew caricature of 2018.

And the President rails against him. Daily.

That is all.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Joe Biden 2024]

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.

Was it the Left who said the Second Amendment should be used against their political opponents? No, that was Trump. Was it the Left who called the media the enemy of the people? No, that was Trump. Was it the Left who called Neo-Nazis fine people? No, that was Trump. Was it the Left who went on Twitter to complain about how the mail bombs were affecting their polls? No, that was Trump.

Trump's rhetoric is absolutely making things worse and the fact that you continue to excuse it and criticize us for calling it out means that you either don't care about what he says, or you approve of what he says.

[parochial boy]

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.

[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?

[parochial boy]

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

1. No-one denies the fact that islamist rhetoric leads to islamist violence

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"

3. The principal victims of islamist terrorism are other muslims

At least compare like to like, seriously

[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.

[User157088589849]

The President of the United States is responsible for this shooting. By manufacturing a potemkin refugee crisis, he encouraged Breitbart and Fox News to spread slander, pinning the emergence of the caravan on George Soros and Democratic politicians. The right-wing media's coverage of the caravan suggested that it was an existential threat to the United States and it was the primary story for weeks. This, of course, was a catalyst in the minds of fascists and those adjacent to fascists.

The President was not encouraging anyone to murder Jews, of course, but he provoked such behavior with his determination to spread propaganda about the danger of caravans. We all know where anti-Semitism on the extreme right stems - it comes from the belief that Jews want to destroy the white race through mass immigration. If one whips up fear and hatred of a caravan of refugees for two weeks, what do you think the outcome is going to be?

This didn't happen once this week. It happened three times. In one case, the plot was foiled. In another case, Jews were murdered. In another case, the case was partially foiled but, sadly, two Black people were murdered in a grocery store. It's time for people to wake up to the reality of America in 2018 - we are in for a period of darkness. This is verging on non-jihadist political terrorism last seen in the developed world in the 1970s and 1980s.

edit: by bringing this up, I am not politicizing anything because this was political violence i.e. an act of terrorism. My attribution of the source of said violence is a theory but I think it deserves consideration, even from those who love the President but who have some affection for Jews. The "Soros" slander, at bare minimum, must stop. If you must blame someone, blame Democratic politicians but blaming Soros points people in the direction of a vector of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda.

Absolutely no, just no


Is his rhetoric helpful , of course not but to blame him for this is crazy

Yes he is responsible. Before the election in 2016 he was openingly encouraging violence against anyone who opposed him. Remember the assaults at his campaign rallies.

How about the mob cheers "lock her up" and the constant sh**t spread on fox news and talk radio making anything up to incite hatred and fear.

Anyone who supports Donald Trump supports Fascism in America. Every single one of you are to blame and your the reason this country is divided. Nazi Germans had the same passion for the Fuhrer as trump supporters have for trump. No matter what happens - you still support him. You need to remember that it was  America in the 1940s that defeated Fascism and ended this Trump/Hitler passion. It cost millions of lives for people in Germany to wake up to their delusion.

He can abuse women - you support him.
He can abuse disabled people - you support him.
He encourages violence against protesters - you support him.
He encourages violence against journalists - you support him.

Donald Trump is a fascist.

[J. J.]

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?

It is.

I am, unfortunately, seeing a lot of parallels between today's left and the right in Germany in the 1920's and early 30's.

I am not a big Trump guy, and disagree with him on some of his policies.   However, I'm looking at the alternative and seeing an increasingly radicalized left, that has even protested against a democratic election.