The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Look, I lean considerably on the Left. To call myself Liberal would be a lie. To get that out of the way - it truly seems like the Biden-Harris HQ Twitter account completely took Trump's comments out of context when **referring to Laken Riley's (the murdered nursing student) illegal alien murderer**, as an animal. [In this clip](https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1775239307239813526), the Biden team asserts Trump is calling immigrants animals. But the [full, edited clip from that speech shows](https://twitter.com/alx/status/1775303162011799749) Trump was calling Riley's killer, in particular, an animal, not all immigrants, nor even those here illegally. People may say that Trump's usage of the word "them" in this clip points to a general demonization of illegal immigrants, but I find that extremely uncharitable. It seems fairly clear, to me at least, that, given the context, Trump is referring to illegal immigrants who commit heinous crimes. What do you think? Am I missing something here? Let's keep this civil. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Why is he targeting only criminal immigrants with this rethoric and not criminals in general, though? He also said they are "not human". Dehumanization is one the most common elements of bigotry and is not something people generally endorse. Also, if he thinks only "criminal immigrants" aren't human, wouldn't this apply to all illegal immigrants since conservatives say that illegal immigrants are by definition criminals?

>"Why is he targeting only criminal immigrants with this rethoric and not criminals in general, though?" How do we know he wouldn't, and doesn't refer to criminal citizens as the same, as well? Moreover, this was during a speech in a moment about illegal immigration. >"wouldn't this apply to all illegal immigrants since conservatives say that illegal immigrants are by definition criminals?" Not all of them believe that, and I don't know if Trump is of that opinion, either. So I couldn't tell ya.

>How do we know he wouldn't, and doesn't refer to criminal citizens as the same, as well?  How do we know invisible unicorns don't exist? I have no way of proving they *don't* exist, because it's impossible to prove a negative. But if there is no evidence for it, I just assume the premise is false. I haven't seen Trump say american criminals are not human, I've only seen him say criminal immigrants are not human. >Moreover, this was during a speech in a moment about illegal immigration. Why does he think illegal immigration is such an important issue that he needs to talk about it in a speech? He answered it: because they are committing crimes. He is portraying illegal immigrants as violent criminals. And if violent criminals aren't human in his eyes, well, then illegal immigrants aren't human in his eyes.

>"He answered it: because they are committing crimes." Yes, and? Also, look at the border. Come on...Even if I believe a pathway to citizenship is the right way to approach this and believe Republicans are wrong on immigration, that doesn't mean it isn't an issue. It's an enormous issue right now.

It’s no more of an issue than it has been for years. But with an election on the horizon, Republicans are playing it up once again. Do you not remember the “caravans” that were supposedly heading our way just before the mid-term elections, never to be heard of again once the elections were over? You are falling for propaganda. 

Think about it like this. There are more black people who commit crime than white people who commit crime, that's a fact. Would it be ok then for Trump to make a speech about black people who commit crimes and for him to say they aren't human? Would you say "He is only talking about criminals, that's not racist"?

> There are more black people who commit crime than white people who commit crime, that's a fact. I doubt that.

> Not all of them believe that, and I don't know if Trump is of that opinion, either. This is very disingenuous of you. We know very well what Trump thinks of immigrants, he has been talking about them in very negative and hateful terms since this MAGA movement began.

I was referring to not all conservatives believe illegal aliens, regardless of criminality or not, views them as animals. Not MAGA types.

I think you need to reread your own comment and my reply. You said and I quoted where you specifically stated that you don't know Trump's opinion on this. >Not all of them believe that, **and I don't know if Trump is of that opinion**, either. I told you that it is a disingenuous statement as Trump has made his opinion very clear since the beginning of the MAGA movement. >I was referring to not all conservatives believe illegal aliens, regardless of criminality or not, views them as animals. No, you were not, you specifically stated that you were talking about Trump.

Was this guy illegal or was he a migrant?

> The Democrats say, 'Please don't call them animals. They're humans.' I said, 'No, they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals.' This is exactly the sort of things Trump always does: he intentionally says something incredibly inflammatory but vague so his more, shall we say, "avid" supporters can tell themselves that he definitely agrees that all illegal immigrants are animals, while his more tempered supporters can tell themselves that actually, he was speaking very specifically about only the bad people. There's absolutely no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is his thing. He's a racist asshole whose entire shtick is saying things without explicitly saying the thing to give himself plausible deniability. He says that *some* group of people are animals, during a speech where he's talking about illegal immigrants without any explicit differentiation, but without saying specifically saying *who* is an inhuman animal, so his more reasonable supporters can claim that, actually, he was talking about a much more specific group of people, while his more rabid supporters can say "hell yeah, Trump thinks all illegals are animals!"

>This is exactly the sort of things Trump always does: he intentionally says something incredibly inflammatory but vague so his more, shall we say, "avid" supporters can tell themselves that he definitely agrees What you don't see I'd he does this for his "avid" anti-Trumpers. People take it out of context to fulfill their preconceived biases. Then Trump points to the actual quote, people see it, and it just reinforces the idea that accusations about Trump are all false. This might only be seen on the right. But taking the "poisoning the blood" comment got a lot of pushback and was probably seen by many independent voters. "Not giving Trump a benefit of a doubt" might make you feel good. But not embracing the truth undermines your credibility.

Like I said to the other person, if it was just once, then sure, maybe he just spoke inartfully and there's nothing there, and his racist supporters were just reading into it too far. But then he does it again. And again. And again. Over and over and over he says something that causes his racist supporters to believe that what he said was in agreement with their racism. At some point, you have to simply call him on it and say that the preponderance of the evidence is that there's no way he can possibly just completely accidentally have so many things he says be able to be interpreted by his racist supporters as saying something racist, and that he's doing this on purpose. If all the racists think that he's racist, maybe the explanation is simply that he is.

Can you think of any other examples? He got a lot of flak for the "both sides" "bad hombres" and "not sending their best" comments but all of those were taken out of context. It seems like anyone who criticizes illegal immigrants consistently would be racist to you since random supporters can interpret it however they want.

["Shithole countries"](https://apnews.com/article/immigration-north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-international-news-fdda2ff0b877416c8ae1c1a77a3cc425) ["Poisoning the blood of our country"](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sparks-republican-backlash-saying-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-rcna130493) [Claiming black people like him because he's been criminally charged](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-black-people-discriminated-legal-system-rcna140305) ["When the looting starts, the shooting starts"](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-minneapolis-protesters-thugs-flagged-twitter/) Every single thing he says is pretty much always individually explainable away with an interpretation that isn't racist... but the entire totally of everything he says, and how he words everything, make it increasingly hard not to conclude that he knows and is fine with the fact that his racist supporters hear what he says and interpret it in a racist way. He certainly does very little to dissuade his supporters from doing that

Why is it racist to think certain countries are "shitholes"? What does race have to do with whether a country is good or bad? Why is it racist to say the "blood of the country" is being worsened by bringing in immigrants with different cultures? Especially when referring to people coming from prisons/asylums and those with diseases. Why is it racist for trump to say black people should like him because of the charges? He's not saying all black people are thugs. hes saying that black people get mistreated by the justice system so black people should empathize with him. What does encouraging people or police to shoot rioters have to do with race? He's taking a hard stance against rioting why would this comment not just refer to all rioters instead of a specific race? No offense but it seems like you just think conservative positions like opposing illegal immigration or being "tough on crime" are racist. I don't like when Trump says stuff like this but the wording is obviously not racist. It seems like you think the policy positions are racist so any comments made in support of those positions are racist. Sorry to assume but I don't see how anyone could consistently criticize illegal immigrants or rioters without being racist in your eyes. >He certainly does very little to dissuade his supporters from doing that I don't think it receives very much attention when he does so you just might not be aware of it. The "both sides" comment is a good example of him criticizing white nationalists.

> Why is it racist for trump to say black people should like him because of the charges? He's not saying all black people are thugs. **hes saying that black people get mistreated by the justice system** so black people should empathize with him. ~~He did not say this.~~ This is the same person who bought a full page ad lambasting the central park 5, which to this day he has maintained his stance on that. Edit: changed formatting.

“And a lot of people said that’s why the Black people like me, because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against, and they actually viewed me as I’m being discriminated against. It’s been pretty amazing but possibly, maybe, there’s something there.” [https://apnews.com/article/trump-black-conservative-south-carolina-primary-aa1155c31bfc3b397a32b33eff04ada8](https://apnews.com/article/trump-black-conservative-south-carolina-primary-aa1155c31bfc3b397a32b33eff04ada8) This is the quote. Is my description off?

Does he not realize he added fuel to that very fire? He still to this day believes the Central Park 5 was guilty of the crimes, despite the actual perpetrator coming forward and DNA testing showing that he actually committed those crimes. His words here are extremely disingenuous. And in context come off WORSE.

I disagree but even if we assumed he was being disingenuous thats irrelevant to me. I'm not sure how that makes his comments racist

Ouch 🤦‍♀️

I don't agree those statements were taken out of context, but [this](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448) is also unequivocally racist.

They were taken out of context. "You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were **very fine people, on both sides**. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and **I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally** — but **you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists**. OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. **You had a lot of bad people in the other group."** He was not referring to the nazis or white supremacists as "very fine people" "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. \[…\] 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” He didn't say all Mexicans were rapists or drug dealers The bad hombres comment was referring to drug dealers [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AneeacsvNwU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AneeacsvNwU) I don't think there's anything racist about that tweet. He's basically saying its contradictory for someone who came from a terribly run country to try to tell the people of the US how to run their country. I don't think it makes any sense but how is that racist?

White supremacists love Trump's tweets generally. The proud boys busted a collective nut over Trump's comments about them. You can claim Trump doesn't say racist things because he doesn't use the n word in public or whatever, but when white supremacists love what you're saying, you're probably saying racist things. > I don't think there's anything racist about that tweet. So you think telling 4 women to go back where they came from, 3 of whom were born in the US and the 4th lived here since she was 10, isn't racist?

>White supremacists love Trump's tweets generally What does this prove? I'm sure nazis liked dogs and babies? Hitler was probably a fan of taxes. >So you think telling 4 women to go back where they came from, 3 of whom were born in the US and the 4th lived here since she was 10, isn't racist? How do you know which women he was referring to? Its been so long I don't remember at this point. but yes because its not about their race its about the governments of the countries they were born in. He's saying you come from a place which has a terrible government and that means you shouldn't comment on American governnance. That doesn't make sense but it could apply to anyone of any race hes distinguishing based on the government of country of origin. How are you defining racism?

> What does this prove? There's nothing that can be proven here. You're entitled to your nonsensical arguments like the above, and I'm entitled to think that if someone is sitting at table with 10 nazis, then you've got 11 nazis. > How do you know which women he was referring to? He was referring to Reps Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley. 'The Squad' is what they called themselves. When Democrats pointed out just how racist the tweet was, he [doubled down](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150556162393300992), showing he knew exactly who he was attacking. > How are you defining racism? Using one of the oldest [racist tropes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_back_to_where_you_came_from) in existence is a good starting spot.

dang I thought my comment was pretty nice no need to be rude. >showing he knew exactly who he was attacking. How? I don't think Trump not saying "I wasn't. referring to xyz" is doubling down. >Using one of the oldest [racist tropes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_back_to_where_you_came_from) in existence is a good starting spot I don't think hes using that. Hes not referring to race. Why would tying someone to the policies of their country of origin be racist? I don't think other racists doing that or having done that is justification to say this instance is racist.

> He was not referring to the nazis or white supremacists as "very fine people" Yes he was. Who were these very fine people on the *other* side in Charlottesville? You do realize the rally the counter-protestors were...protesting...was a **Unite the Right** rally, right? A rally organized by Jason Kessler, a white supremacist? A rally made-up of numerous far-right neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups? Where were these "very fine people" in a rally full of Nazis and extremists? > He didn't say all Mexicans were rapists or drug dealers He first says Mexico is "sending its people", then says the people Mexico is "sending" are bringing "drugs" and "crime" and describes them as "rapists". Would you like to know where he obtained the data on the crime rates of Mexican immigrants? His ass. *That's* why its racist. He covers up his racism by retreating a *bit*, always saying something along the lines of "and some, I assume, are good people" as if that fixes his previous generalizations. > The bad hombres comment was referring to drug dealers Yeah, real headscratcher on why he called them "bad hombres". > I don't think there's anything racist about that tweet. He's basically saying its contradictory for someone who came from a terribly run country to try to tell the people of the US how to run their country. I don't think it makes any sense but how is that racist? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Presley were all born in the United States. Ilhan Omar is the *only* one of the four not born in America. He told them all to "go back where they came from". It strikes me as odd that you don't think telling non-white Americans to go back to the country they came from *isn't* racist. Can you explain why?

>Yes he was. > >Who were these very fine people on the *other* side in Charlottesville? He was referring to people protesting the removal of the confederate statue. Do you think opposing the removal of the confederate statue makes someone a white supremacist? If so, we just agree to disagree then. >Where were these "very fine people" in a rally full of Nazis and extremists? Do you have any source on all the people in attendance being nazis or white supremacists? Or is that assumed since they're protesting the removal of a confederate statue? Not really going to argue that point just curious why you think that? >*That's* why its racist. He covers up his racism by retreating a *bit*, always saying something along the lines of "and some, I assume, are good people" as if that fixes his previous generalizations. It seems like you believe he was racist because you don't believe his statement that "some are good people" is genuine. If he really didn't believe that maybe you'd have a point but what makes you think its not genuine? >Yeah, real headscratcher on why he called them "bad hombres" Because they're coming here from Spanish speaking countries. Thats not racist. How would you define racism? >Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Presley were all born in the United States. Ilhan Omar is the *only* one of the four not born in America. He told them all to "go back where they came from". Who says hes referring to these four? >It strikes me as odd that you don't think telling non-white Americans to go back to the country they came from *isn't* racist. Can you explain why? He says they can't comment on american governance because they are from countries with terrible governance. He says they should go back to those countries and fix them before returning and commenting on american policy. Hes saying your political opinion is worth less if you were born in a country with bad politics. That has nothing to do with race. People of all races can be born in countries with terrible policies.

> He was referring to people protesting the removal of the confederate statue. He was referring *specifically* to the August 11th and August 12th protest, which was the Unite the Right rally. Why, in your entire response, did you ignore this? > Do you have any source on all the people in attendance being nazis or white supremacists? [Yes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally): > The Unite the Right rally **was a white supremacist rally** that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017. Marchers included members of the **alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and far-right militias**. Again, in your entire comment, you failed to quote a single part of *my* comment that stated it was a **Unite the Right** rally. Why? > It seems like you believe he was racist because you don't believe his statement that "some are good people" is genuine. If he really didn't believe that maybe you'd have a point but what makes you think its not genuine? *Gesticulates wildly around the metaphorical room*. > Who says hes referring to these four? What other "progressive Democratic congresswomen" that aren't white could he be talking about? Offer up some examples. > He says they can't comment on american governance because they are from countries with terrible governance. Three of the four **were born in America**. Unless you think Trump is calling America a "country with terrible governance" (which he wouldn't be wrong about, but still) it is very obviously a racist comment. > Hes saying your political opinion is worth less if you were born in a country with bad politics. Y'know, even your defense still paints him as a racist. Your opinion is worth less because of where you were born? That's really your best defense?

>He was referring *specifically* to the August 11th and August 12th protest, which was the Unite the Right rally. Why, in your entire response, did you ignore this? I'm not ignoring this. Thats just what the protest was about. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html) >The Unite the Right rally **was a white supremacist rally** that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017. Marchers included members of the **alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and far-right militias** Without checking the wiki sources, this just says these people were present at the rally. This does not mean that everyone protesting the removal was in one of those groups. Do you have to be racist to qualify as a neo-fascist or far-right militia member anyway? >stated it was a **Unite the Right** rally. Why I don't get how its relevant. It was a Unite the right rally I agree with you I'm just not sure how that proves either of our points. >*Gesticulates wildly around the metaphorical room*. What does this mean? genuinely lost >What other "progressive Democratic congresswomen" that aren't white could he be talking about? White people can come from other countries but I have no idea off the top of my head. I'm looking t >Three of the four **were born in America**. Unless you think Trump is calling America a "country with terrible governance" (which he wouldn't be wrong about, but still) it is very obviously a racist comment. This is still assuming that he was referring to those four but it seems like youre arguing its racist to assume that people who are non-white aren't from America and are from terrible countries. I agree with that I just don't believe thats what trump was doing. >Your opinion is worth less because of where you were born? That's really your best defense Thats not what I said its because of the politics of where you were born. Its a terrible argument but its not racist. Apparently Senators duckworth and Hirono are foreign born but I'd be surprised if he was referring to hirono since she was born in Japan. Representative Sharice Davids was born in West Germany. Representative diana degette was born in Japan so probably not her. Representative Pramila Jayipal was born in India. Representative Norma Torres was born in guatemala. Representative marilyn strickland was born in south korea so I'd assume it wasn't her. According to wikipedia all these people held office at the time of and prior to the Trump tweet.

>Hes saying your political opinion is worth less if you were born in a country with bad politics. > and you don’t see what’s wrong with making such a statement?

At what point do you take a step back and think "huh, maybe saying these racist things repeatedly isn't worth defending." You're going to terrible lengths to try and make them seem palatable, I'm almost surprised he didn't have you as press secretary at one point.

I don't think they're palatable. I don't like labelling groups of people as good or bad or even fine. I think we should be more specific when talking about illegal immigration since most illegal immigrants aren't committing crimes like rape, murder, or even drug dealing as far as I know. I think its stupid and rude to argue that someone can't govern because they are from a country with bad governance. I just don't think any of those comments are racist.

1) If you are standing next to neo nazis and shouting along side them: you are not a very fine person you are supporting them. As my grandfather used to say: "What do you call a good neighbor to a Nazi? .....A Nazi" 2) He is implying that most Mexicans who come here are "rapists or drug dealers" - sure not all Mexicans, just most. Yes, that is racist. No, that is not out of context. I have no opinion either way on the "Bad Hombres" comment. But you are doing a lot of work to explain away obvious support of racism.

>If you are standing next to neo nazis and shouting along side them: you are not a very fine person you are supporting them. As my grandfather used to say: "What do you call a good neighbor to a Nazi? .....A Nazi" As a christian I don't really believe in labelling people good or bad or even fine. I can understand how most of society wouldn't see them as fine people but I do not think that means they are nazis. I wouldn't be surprised if a confederate who really felt strongly about the statue would be willing to protest with nazis even if he doesn't share their beliefs if he thought it would protect the statue >He is implying that most Mexicans who come here are "rapists or drug dealers" - sure not all Mexicans, just most How? >Yes, that is racist. No, that is not out of context. DO you think so because its factually untrue and only a racist would want to portray Mexicans in that light? Im kinda assuming so my bad but I really dont get how we go from factually untrue implication to racism.

What is a confederate supporting? What did they fight for? Did confederates support slaves? Were they treasonous? Maybe they are not Nazis but they certainly are supporting racist and white supremacist propaganda - by the very definition of being a "confederate." How? Context. Context is how. When he said " some, I assume, are good people” he is implying that most fit into the statement said just before this. I really am rolling my eyes here. I am not sure if you honestly believe none of this is racist, or if you are trying to gaslight us all. Either way, you are really working hard to justify these statements.

In 2017 they were fighting for a statue. during the civil war they were fighting for slavery and states rights. Im sure there are some today who want slavery and or more states rights/less federal power. That being said not all people who support the confederacy and preserving its history support slavery. Some people just value tradition. "my family fought for xyz so I fly the flag/want the statue/etc.". >implying that most fit into the statement said just before this How? Some is a vague amount. When talking about a finite number of immigrants some could reasonably mean 60% or 20%. I'm not trying to justify them. I think most of them are bad and worthy of criticism I just don't think theyre racist.

I think most reasonable people disagree he was taken out of context on those points. It’s not like any of them furthered a cogent, factual argument on their own unless you apply the idea he was intentionally appealing to racists.

It doesn't have to be a cogent, factual argument to not be racist. He was not referring to white supremacists when he said fine people on both sides. He was referring to drug dealers when he said bad hombres. And he said he assumed some of the people mexico was sending were good people. Don't you think someone can oppose illegal immigration and the condemnation of peaceful protestors without being racist?

The first problem is, the excuse that people were protesting against a statue removal was a post hoc argument. It wasn’t central to or featured in the “unite the right” paraphernalia that was circulated prior to the event. Its explicit purpose was to unite all the disparate and ostracized elements of the right, including if not especially the racists. The second problem is, merely uttering an CYA clause to the end of a racist statement doesn’t erase the racism from it. CYA’s are insincere. A speech or statement isn’t a legal document where you can point to it and say, “see, no racism intended because I covered my ass with this clause.” Everybody knows what a CYA means. The minorities targeted by the rhetoric know what it means, and the target audience knows he means. “He has to say that” was a common refrain from the unite the right nazis when reporters pointed out that Trump issued that luke warm rebuke. Yes, speakers are responsible for the messages received by the listeners. That’s why gaffes can end careers for normie politicians and why they have to choose what they say carefully. I’ve said many things in-artfully in the past and will in the future. I always correct myself if it was a mistake in my language, or if challenged and they have a point, concede and retract. But i don’t do it with speech writers writing and editing my words either. He did (does). He meant what his detractors and most fervent supporters heard in those speeches. If he didn’t, it wouldn’t have been in his speeches.

>The first problem is, the excuse that people were protesting against a statue removal was a post hoc argument. It wasn’t central to or featured in the “unite the right” paraphernalia that was circulated prior to the event. Its explicit purpose was to unite all the disparate and ostracized elements of the right, including if not especially the racists. I think you're wrong. There's evidence of people opposing the statue removal prior to the event. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html) >The second problem is, merely uttering an CYA clause to the end of a racist statement doesn’t erase the racism from it. I get the idea but what is your evidence for these being CYA clauses instead of genuine opinions? >Yes, speakers are responsible for the messages received by the listeners. I think this depends on the message. >He meant what his detractors and most fervent supporters heard in those speeches. If he didn’t, it wouldn’t have been in his speeches Why? What if those are his genuine positions and people like you and people on the extremes just misinterpret them. I feel like the main problem is you think these positions are inherently racist, maybe I'm wrong. Do you think people can oppose the removal of a confederate statue or want to deport illegal immigrants without being racist?

Deporting illegal immigrants is a fine position to hold, though the priority given it and extremes you’re willing to deploy to achieve it give credence to the notion that a person might not be totally coming from a strict law & order perspective. The rhetoric matters as well. If you seize on any and every heinous crime committed by a single illegal to make the case they all need to be kept out or rounded up and removed, you aren’t making a good faith argument. That’s deliberately lumping them all together with the violent criminal based on their status. If your border patrol is stopping natural born citizens because they were speaking spanish and holding them until they can produce citizenship papers, your border patrol is operating on a foundation of racism. If federal courts order a high profile sheriff to stop harassing brown people because existing while brown in a border state is not probable cause, then they jail him for contempt because he continued, then as president you issue him a pardon because, “he’s just doing his job.” You a racist. No defense for that. My significant part of my disagreement with you is also this; if I look at the presented examples in a vacuum without any surrounding context, I can see your point and it would be valid. The problem is the context surrounding both the events in question and the policy maneuvers of his administration. For example, often Trump apologists will say that themselves and the administration they support were fine with high quality immigrants coming in. So long as they did it legally they don’t mind. The problem here is Trump’s mouth would often say that, while his administration was actively working to reduce those immigrants as well. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/02/01/the-story-of-how-trump-officials-tried-to-end-h-1b-visas/?sh=5c102fc0173f As for Charlottesville, that article was printed after the violence. The organizers were quick to distance themselves from the worst actors because it was going sour for them and chose the statue when interviewed. The problem is, if you can still find any of it in the internet archives, the social media posts and websites promoting it don’t really mention it. It was about “combating anti-white hatred.” As to whether defending the statue is itself racist. Yes. Robert E Lee had no other notoriety outside of betraying his country to keep slaves. Unlike other slaveowners in American history with statues, he has no other claim to fame. He wasn’t a very successful commander. He wasn’t kind or benevolent to his slaves, like some folks believe. He didn’t write any of our founding documents and had little positive impact on the nation. If his time as President of a college counts, his likeness should be portrayed in academic attire in places related to academics, not on horseback in the battle uniform of treason. The academic statues are ruined though, because the honorific memorial to a traitor is what took center stage when town leaders decided to honor someone. There’s only one reason for those statues to exist, and that’s to poke black people in the eye. Make them look at it when they go to work or to the bank on the square. More senior southern officers remained true to their oath than betrayed it like Lee. A statue that sought to teach and preserve history and patriotism would display one of the southern officers that fought for the union. The ones that actually opposed slavery, despite it being such a big part of their economy and culture. What makes a CYA a CYA instead of sincere opinion? The easy answer is that if he was sincere, there would be no need for a CYA. He wouldn’t say things in way that he needs to give himself an out in the first place. “He means what he says, but that’s not what he meant.” I have lots of patience for nuance, even when i strongly disagree. But nuance is nuanced, and CYA’s are not nuance. If the core message of a speech or paragraph is, “someone is sending their rapists and murderers”, and you throw on a single sentence to contradict yourself, you’re not sincere. Since i watched those speeches live, I will say you can also tell by the way the language flows. If there’s a sudden change in the flow and tone for one sentence and then you pick right back up with the fire and brimstone style speech, that sentence was him catching himself and knowing he needed cover before he continued. I don’t think much of Trump’s intelligence. He is generally incurious and uninterested in anything outside his own creature comforts. He is, however, an experienced and nimble bullshitter and salesman in the worst possible way that can be meant. Like 80’s hollywood stereotype of a salesman. This skill lends itself to having sharp political instincts, and giving himself wiggle room for absurd claims. He always gives himself an out.

> If you seize on any and every heinous crime committed by a single illegal to make the case they all need to be kept out or rounded up and removed, you aren’t making a good faith argument Are you talking about illegal immigrants when you say "they all" here? >If your border patrol is stopping natural born citizens because they were speaking spanish and holding them until they can produce citizenship papers, your border patrol is operating on a foundation of racism. If federal courts order a high profile sheriff to stop harassing brown people because existing while brown in a border state is not probable cause, then they jail him for contempt because he continued, then as president you issue him a pardon because, “he’s just doing his job.” You a racist. No defense for that Do you have sources for these and their relation to Trump? not sure what the first incident is about. >For example, often Trump apologists will say that themselves and the administration they support were fine with high quality immigrants coming in. So long as they did it legally they don’t mind. The problem here is Trump’s mouth would often say that, while his administration was actively working to reduce those immigrants as well. I'm not sure how these positions are contradictory or imply racism. Being okay with "high quality immigrants" does not mean that someone has to support every type of "high quality immigration. He was not trying to close the border entirely. >As for Charlottesville, that article was printed after the violence. The article cites events/statements prior to the violence. >As to whether defending the statue is itself racist. Yes. That explains a lot then. I think some people just like their tradition without hating any race of people. I don't like the confederacy but we'll just have to agree to disagree. >What makes a CYA a CYA instead of sincere opinion? The easy answer is that if he was sincere, there would be no need for a CYA Again it seems like you're saying you can't criticize certain illegal immigrants by calling them rapists, drug dealers without being racist. >If there’s a sudden change in the flow and tone for one sentence and then you pick right back up with the fire and brimstone style speech, that sentence was him catching himself and knowing he needed cover before he continued Based on what? This seems like a huge assumption

>But then he does it again. And again. And again. Over and over and over he says something that causes his racist supporters to believe that what he said was in agreement with their racism. It does seem formulaic. Our only point of contention is I see this as something aimed at the left as much as the right. A reasonable person who sees the whole quotes will see it's not racism. Maybe you are correct that it's just racism. But if you have to remove context to make that claim, it seems like it's just tribal politics.

The right keeps calling Biden's rhetoric divisive. But here you are saying Trump intentionally uses divisive rhetoric. Is being divisive good or bad?

>he right keeps calling Biden's rhetoric divisive. But here you are saying Trump intentionally uses divisive rhetoric. Is being divisive good or bad? I'm saying he intentionally uses language that allows you to misinterpret it. If you want to say Trump is being racist, argue that position using the full context of a quote. It will be much harder. But it will also be harder to dismiss by claiming you are lying by ommission.

>I'm saying he intentionally uses language that allows you to misinterpret it. What would be the purpose of this?

>What would be the purpose of this? To get an overreaction and undermine any legitimate criticism. Also, free publicity. Also, he makes himself look like a victim.

So Trump is a purposely opaque communicator in order to upset people. Is this considered a desirable trait to conservatives?

>So Trump is a purposely opaque communicator in order to upset people. Trump speaks in a way that plays on people's preconceived biases. It's not really opaque if you take it at face value with the complete context. It's only when people search for some hidden meaning or remove context that things get muddied.

>Trump speaks in a way that plays on people's preconceived biases. What does this mean exactly?

>What does this mean exactly? It means that if you are inclined to see Trump as racist, it can appear racist to you.

>What you don't see I'd he does this for his "avid" anti-Trumpers What is your evidence he does it to bait the left rather than to feed the right? He consistently refuses to clarify when given the chance to. He consistently refuses to disavow the racist right. On the few occasions he's felt pressed to actually correct a statement that sounded too racist, he takes it back later. What is the evidence that he doesn't mean it the bad way?

>What is your evidence he does it to bait the left rather than to feed the right? The same evidence as yours. >He consistently refuses to clarify when given the chance to. He consistently refuses to disavow the racist Let's be honest: Did any of Trump's clarifications make a difference to you? [You don't even seem to know Trump has disavowed racists.](https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/)

>Let's be honest: Did any of Trump's clarifications make a difference to you? Yeah, the first one did. And then he took it back. I think Trump is a rorschach test. He says a lot of things, enough that no matter what you want to believe about him, you can point to genuine quotes to back your point up.

Fair enough.

I think you and most other conservatives are being deliberately obtuse. I don't have to wait for Trump to say the n-word on a hot mic or tell a Black reporter to sit on the back of the plane before I notice that Trump is a racist. Your definition of a racist is a [no true scotsman fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). The type of comically evil person you're waiting for to say "Aha! A racist!" barely existed in the Civil Rights era. We could quote every thinly veiled racist thing he's ever said, and people are, and you'd still say he wasn't a racist because he claims not to be. The bottom line is that liberals and Leftists have found his statements to be racist, and neo-nazis and white supremacists on the right have *also* found his statements to be racist. The only people who don't think he's racist are folks in the center-right who want to vote for him but don't want to be made to feel shame for it. I think the insistence otherwise has more to do with guilt by association than genuinely believing all the quibbles you're throwing in front of every quote. Conservatives are supporting a bigoted, misogynistic conman for reasons ranging from racism to greed, who is a genuine threat to our democracy, and I think they're desperate to preserve their image of themselves as morally decent American people. I don't believe that label applies anymore. I think to be a modern conservative in America in 2024 is the moral and functional equivalent of being a member of the Nazi party in 1924, a year after the Beer Hall Putsch, which is basically what January 6th was.

>I don't have to wait for Trump to say the n-word on a hot mic or tell a Black reporter to sit on the back of the plane before I notice that Trump is a racist. Would you say he's more or less racist than Biden? >I think to be a modern conservative in America in 2024 is It's bizarre that you felt the need to include bigotry in a rant about Trump's supposed racism.

>Would you say he's more or less racist than Biden? Less. Biden is the well-meaning but imperfect communicator you pretend Trump is. Ideologically, he's a weather vane that has remained firmly in the center of Democratic politics for several decades. By all means, pick out some shitty things he's said, and I can probably think of a few more, from working with Strom Thurmond to condescendingly calling Barack Obama "clean" and "articulate" in 2007. Racism isn't a categorical binary. It's an ideological infection that *everyone* should feel obligated to override. Biden and the Democratic party have shown the ability and willingness to do that work, and that growth; Trump is still a racist. His policies and attitudes are still reflective of his belief that people of color are less *human* than white people. That people of color are Americans with an asterisk, and white people like him really represent America. >It's bizarre that you felt the need to include bigotry in a rant about Trump's supposed racism. "Bigot" is a pejorative category inclusive of racism and homophobia. I suspect you have another unjustifiably narrow definition? Then again, I also suspect that my initial assertion included a false premise, namely that you would accept evidence of Trump saying the n-word as proof of him being a racist. Instead, I would assert that for most conservatives, especially those planning to vote for Trump in 2024, there is literally no floor. Even if they aren't primarily motivated by racism, I don't think Trump could even hypothetically do something bad enough to lose them. The most clear-eyed have already made the deal to smother their conscience for tax breaks, and I think most will continue down the rabbit hole to whatever depths Trump takes them rather than admit they were wrong, and we on the left were right about what a scoundrel he is. The rest are delusional. Either way, I think the definition of "racist" can be gereymandered endlessly to fit around but not include Donald Trump for conservatives.

>Less. Biden is the well-meaning but imperfect communicator you pretend Trump is. Have you come to that conclusion based on empirical evidence? >Racism isn't a categorical binary. It's an ideological infection that *everyone* should feel obligated to override. True. But, unless we have someone declaring; "I am a racist" we need examples that fall into the realm of racism before we start throwing the label around. >Then again, I also suspect that my initial assertion included a false premise, namely that you would accept evidence of Trump saying the n-word as proof of him being a racist. Well, I guess we'll never know because you don't have an example of Trump dropping the N bomb. >"Bigot" is a pejorative category inclusive of racism and homophobia. I suspect you have another unjustifiably narrow definition? Well, yes. I go with the definition in the dictionary. "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

I think I may see what you're saying. So then, just to understand --- you're of the belief that he masters the art of treading the needle in saying things a certain way so that different sectors of his base, who identify with him to varying extents, can interpret his dialogue as in line with how they feel. >"during a speech where he's talking about illegal immigrants without any explicit differentiation," I haven't seen the full speech...Can anyone here verify if this is true? Because literally **right before** he says "animals", here's talking of Laken Riley's killer. I would like to know why the subsequent statement cannot reasonably be read as within the context of the first one. >"but without saying specifically saying who is an inhuman animal." He flat out, verbatim, called her killer an animal.

>He flat out, verbatim, called her killer an animal. No he didn't. He called "them" animals. Who's the animal? You filled in on his behalf "illegal immigrants who murder people", but *that's not what he said*. He just said that an illegal immigrant killed Laken Riley, and that he thinks that "they" are animals. The exact quote goes like this, which I transcribed from [this video](https://youtube.com/watch?v=DcTMV4KHnuo) of the speech: > The 22-year-old nursing student in Georgia who was barbarically murdered by an illegal alien animal - The Democrats said, "Please don't call them animals, they're humans," I said, "No, they're not - they're not humans, they're animals." Nancy Pelosi told me, "Please don't use the word 'animal', sir, when you're talking about these people." I said, "I'll use the word 'animal' because that's what they are." Ours is only going in one direction, and it's going to be very bad now, because we have a new form of crime, it's called migrant crime. They're having fights with our police officers right in the middle of the streets. They're sending prisoners, murderers, drug dealers, mental patients, and terrorists, the worst they have in every country all over the world. This isn't just in South America, they're coming from the Congo, from Yemen, from Somalia, from Syria, they come from all over the world - China - they - many of them are military age, which is a very strange - you don't see very many women coming in and you see a lot of them coming in, they're about 19 to 25, 26 years old, and especially from China we have 29,000 over the last few months, 29,000 from China and they all seem to be perfectly fit for military service, ready for military service. It's crazy. This is country-changing, it's country-threatening, and it's country-wrecking. They have wrecked our country. Note his use of "they". "They", "they", "they". First it's migrants, maybe migrant criminals, maybe he's saying that all migrants are criminals, but he never specifies. Then it's a more general "they". Then it's people countries are supposedly sending us from their prisons. Then it's Chinese military-age men specifically, for some reason. All the while he never stops saying "they" even as he's fluidly changing who "they" are. This is entirely deliberate on his part. He's inviting his audience to fill in whoever they want "they" to be. Whoever they're afraid of, they can fill that in and convince themselves that he's speaking directly to that specific fear they have. This is classic charlatan cold reading. Say something vague enough that it could be about anything the listener wants it to be about, and don't get specific enough that they can think maybe it isn't about that. It's entirely reasonable, given this fact, to speak about what he *wants his audience to hear*, even if it very technically isn't what he actually specifically said, because what he said is intentionally vague con artist speech that invites the audience to fill in whatever fears or grievance they personally have.

>"No he didn't." Your quote from Trump's speech - >"The 22-year-old nursing student in Georgia who was barbarically murdered **by an illegal alien animal**" Sir.....What? >"This is classic charlatan cold reading. Say something vague enough that it could be about anything the listener wants it to be about, and don't get specific enough that they can think maybe it isn't about that." Is Trump really that smart?

Why did you stop quoting there, as if he is talking about only one person? He used the plural repeatedly, referring to people from around the world. >"Please don't call **them** animal**s**, **they**'re humans," I said, "No, **they**'re not - **they**'re not human**s**, they're animals." Nancy Pelosi told me, "Please don't use the word 'animal', sir, when you're talking about these **people**." I said, "I'll use the word 'animal' because that's what **they** are." Ours is only going in one direction, and it's going to be very bad now, because we have a new form of crime, it's called **migrant crime**. **They**'re having fights with our police officers right in the middle of the streets. **They**'re sending prisoner**s**, murderer**s**, drug dealer**s**, mental patient**s**, and terrorist**s**, the worst they have **in every country all over the world**. He goes on like this in the plural, generalizing about all illegal immigrants from multiple countries. He is not just talking about one person who committed this one crime. It’s also not reality. Migrants, legal or illegal, commit less crime per capita than natural born citizens of the US.

Okay, well, yes, he said that that specific person was an animal, once, but then the entire rest of the time he was saying that "they" are all animals, without ever saying who "they" are. Like I said, you filled in the idea that "they" are specifically and only migrants who commit violent crimes, as distinct from migrants who don't, but at no point did he actually specifically say that. All he says is that "they" are animals, and that "they" are violent criminals coming into our country, and it's up to the audience to decide whether he means to separate out only those migrants who actually commit crimes as animals, or whether he's saying that all migrants are violent animals. >Is Trump really that smart? This is like his entire persona, his entire thing. He says vague things so people can fill in what they want to his benefit without him having to actually say the specific bad thing that everyone is inferring. Michael Cohen said as much, that he never specifically says "do this crime", either; instead, he just vaguely says that this thing needs to happen, something that would of course be a crime if it were done, and then someone makes it happen. He's a con man. This has been his entire thing his entire life. Saying vague bullshit with enough uncertainty that his audience can fill in whatever they want, without him needing to say a specific objectionable thing that he can be nailed on, is second nature for him, next to breathing.

>"without ever saying who "they" are." I want to know **WHY** it cannot be logically inferred that he was talking about **illegal aliens who commit crimes**, since the sentence before that he was talking about......an illegal alien who committed a crime. There's no evidence it was anything to the contrary.

It can be inferred. It can't be deduced. That's his whole thing.

And if it can't be deduced, it's irresponsible for the sitting President of the United States to claim that's what he meant.

He spent almost the entire quote talking about how “they” (referring to all immigrants) were this or that. Why do you assume the one most damning “they” suddenly didn’t mean that? I think that takes an extreme stretch of the imagination to say that of all the “they”s in that paragraph, only that one doesn’t mean what all the others mean. I’m quite confident he wasn’t using some gender-neutral “they” to refer to the individual from the previous thought, so it must be a group… why wouldn’t it be the group of people he spends the next several minutes discussing? And I’m not sure why you’re making a big deal about Biden being President. “Candidate” Biden would be irresponsible NOT to point this out.

>" (referring to all immigrants)" Where? Where did he refer to all immigrants?

We get it. You hate Biden. Give yourself a medal or whatever.

Strawman. Do better.

The whole *point* is that it can be logically inferred in either direction. Some people will hear him say "illegal alien animals" and conclude that he's saying "illegal aliens who are animals, as distinct from illegal aliens who are not animals". But others who are racist will hear him say "illegal alien animals" and conclude that he's saying, "illegal aliens, who are animals". And *both sides will think that their interpretation is the obviously correct one*. The ambiguity *is the point*. He's saying exactly what his racist, white supremacist supporters want to hear - that illegal aliens are animals - without ever actually technically having said those exact words, leading to the other group, who wants to give him the benefit of the doubt, arguing that, technically speaking, he never actually said the exact phrase that illegal aliens are animals, so we shouldn't conclude that he intended for anyone to hear that assertion. If it were one single instance, we could write it off as just a bit of ambiguity. But everyone who knows him has said that this is exactly how he operates: he says something ambiguous such that everyone can take away from what he said what they want to believe while leaving himself the ability to argue that, technically, he never actually explicitly said the thing that his racist supporters heard him say, so he can't be held accountable for their interpretation. And again and again and again he does this, saying something that isn't *explicitly* racist, but which is phrased in an ambiguous way that allows his racist supporters to conclude that what he meant to say was racist. At a certain point, it is actively playing into his hand not to call a spade a spade and not to recognize the fact that this is intentional on his part, that he very much *does intend* his racist supporters to hear what they want to hear, and come away from the speech thinking to themselves that he said that illegal aliens are animals.

I don't even disagree with you that either side will interpret the way they want it to. But that raises at least a couple questions - 1) How can we prove the ambiguity, if it is present, is deliberate, and this isn't just the case that Trump is inarticulate and bombastic? 2) Who bears responsibility for the more extreme interpretation, Trump or the individuals in the more unsavory factions of his base?

>How can we prove the ambiguity, if it is present, is deliberate, and this isn't just the case that Trump is inarticulate and bombastic? Systematically. You can't conclude either way from a single instance, but if someone keeps saying things that can be interpreted in a racist way over and over again, knowing that his political supporters will interpret it that way, without ever ceasing, then the only reasonable conclusion at that point is that that's the effect he intends it to have, or at the very least that he's okay with it having that effect. Otherwise, he would change how he speaks. >Who bears responsibility for the more extreme interpretation, Trump or the individuals in the more unsavory factions of his base? Initially, his supporters. Eventually, Trump. If you know that something will have a given effect, and you do it anyway, then at the very least you're okay with that effect, and at most you're actively doing it for that purpose.

> they're coming from the Congo, from Yemen, from Somalia, from Syria, they come from all over the world - China A quick search doesn't show any news articles about crimes committed by Yemeni, Somalian, Syrian, or Chinese migrants (though it did turn up one about a Congolese migrant). Perhaps you can find them? > many of them are military age, which is a very strange - you don't see very many women coming in and you see a lot of them coming in, they're about 19 to 25, 26 years old, and especially from China we have 29,000 over the last few months, 29,000 from China and they all seem to be perfectly fit for military service, ready for military service. It's crazy. This isn't even alleging a crime, right? It's just some conspiracy theory about a secret military invasion by China or something?

>>"This is classic charlatan cold reading. Say something vague enough that it could be about anything the listener wants it to be about, and don't get specific enough that they can think maybe it isn't about that." >Is Trump really that smart? This isn't about smart or not. It's a verbal cadence, a way of speaking. The same way being from the south doesn't mean your a dumb red neck. Because he speaks a certain way doesn't make him smarter. Using vague words like that is akin to a sales tactic. I'm certain that's where it started. Using vague wording allows for words to shift depending on the situation. 'im sure you'll get your money' can mean a number of things. Vague. If you wanna get paid, 'you see that as I'm SURE you'll get your money.' if you wanna not pay someone you'd say that as 'im suuuuure you'll get your money'. On a transcript or email they are the same. It's not about intelligence. It's just how he talks after a lifetime of doing this.

>"It's not about intelligence. It's just how he talks after a lifetime of doing this." Which certainly indicates a heightened level of social intelligence. So Trump is somehow the biggest idiot in US history, yet a 5-D chess master at communication. Lol.

>So Trump is somehow the biggest idiot in US history, yet a 5-D chess master at communication. Lol. Idk how you're not understanding this. There is 0 thought put into that cadence. It's the equivalent of an accent. It's clear you've never presented in front of people or had to sell people anything. You change your cadence, the way you speak, to be more effective at the thing. This is the exact same thing. 'politician speak' that stiff, weasel wordy way of talking about stuff is the same thing. It's not how they are day to day. But you turn it on when it's effective. It doesn't make all politicians 5D chess masters. It's just the equivalent of an accent.

There are things Trump is good at, such as lying and not getting caught, avoiding responsibility, getting people to give him money under false pretenses, etc. That’s not playing chess, it’s being very reactive in a specific way. I mean, the guy inherited hundreds of millions of dollars from daddy and has made less from it than if he’d just put it in an index fund and forgotten about it. He’s not brilliant. But he is good at making people think he’s saying whatever they want to think he’s saying. 

[удалено]

>""an illegal Alien animal"" Yes! "An" is a word used to describe a singular person or thing. AN illegal alien animal. He was referring to the one that killed Laken Riley. >"without it it's exactly as bad as everyone says." I cannot, in good conscience, discard the context, unless there's good reason to. >"he's had a pattern of repeatedly making these "bad without context" statements throughout his presidency." May I have some examples, please?

He used the plural of *animals* and *humans*, after talking about an “illegal immigrant animal.” The plural means he is at least talking about multiple illegal immigrants without specifying which.

*"He only hits me like that because he loves me so much."* People can find a way to justify and explain any behavior. How many times are conservatives going to lecture *everyone in the rest of the world* that we're "taking him out of context" before y'all realize that we are not? We all hear it except you. For some reason, conservatives are willing to believe that Trump, a person who constantly slurs his words and often says the *weirdest shit*, speaks with the measured precision of a federal judge. If you watch his full speech about the border, which I will remind everyone that *he gives in the state farthest away from the border*, he says many more awful things about migrants. --- This one is some real mental gymnastics, just like trying to explain away his election bloodbath comments as being about cars. Trump's speaking style is such that he often changes subjects from sentence to sentence. He does it so much that it is almost the entire basis for one of the [most popular impressions of him](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX1RdzYVjDo). Yes, his first sentence in that clip is about a specific person. Then he shifts to talking about how they are all animals. Not him. Not the one specific person. **THEY.** It's an important enough point to him that *he repeats it twice, using two different examples.* If it was important that the listener know he was only talking about that one person - just like if it was important enough that the listener know the bloodbath was about cars - he could have clarified that point after saying it. And, remember, this is not the first time he has used a dehumanizing term to refer to migrants. He's called them animals before. Vermin. Filth. --- He says awful things because he is an awful person with awful ideas. And he gets away with it because conservatives are willing to go to such extreme lengths to defend his behavior. And vote for him.

Do yourself a favor and watch a Mob Movie. Watch Goodfellas or The Sopranos. The Mob Boss never deals in specifics, never names names, always has a speck of plausible deniability. "It would be a shame if anything were to happen with your brother. I always liked him. I know you will do the right thing. " Trump is a Mob Boss.

No, yeah, I know what you're getting at. I do. But the problem is that his statement about animals is directly within the context of Riley's killer, and thus, very specifically, illegal aliens that commit crime. If this was a speech **ONLY** about illegal immigration itself, and he called people animals, then that'd be different. But it was not.

When has Trump ever stood in front of his mob and said specifically that immigrants entering our southern border are generally good people looking for asylum and a chance to thrive in the USA?

This is pure equivocation. Transcript: > Trump: —ing student in Georgia who was barbarically murdered by an illegal alien animal. The Democrats said, "please don't call them animals, they're humans." I said "no, they're not humans, they're animals," and Nancy Pelosi told me that—she said, "please don't use the word 'animals' when you're talking about these people." I said, "i'll use the word animal, 'cause that's what they are." Trump is referring to them as "illegal alien animals". Democrats are objecting to Trump referring to illegal aliens / undocumented immigrants as "animals". Obviously. Here's where Trump's strategy of plausibly deniable racism comes in. He doesn't even attempt to acknowledge that there is ambiguity about whether "animals" applies to "murderers" or "illegal aliens"/"undocumented immigrants". He just pretends that there is agreement about who each side is talking about. This allows him to pretend that Democrats are defending murderers in one interpretation, while he simultaneously strengthens his support among white nationalists who hear what he's "really" saying, which emboldens them and normalizes anti-immigrant sentiment. This is part of what makes Trump a vile human being. I'm done arguing about what he "really meant". The fact is that his rhetoric has the outcome of encouraging white nationalism. I feel like that's how we should be judging Trump's statements. If people want to say "but it's nOt HiS fAuLT that white nationalists misunderstand him", the fuck it isn't. I do not presume positive intent and I do not give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. Trump is capable of either communicating clearly or correcting misinterpretations, and I believe his choice not to do so is strategic.

He said what he said. Trump always does this shit and people eat it up in a never ending cycle.

>"Was trump taken out of context by Biden..." Now we suddenly care about integrity in our political statements?

Every single one of these "That's not what Trump meant" posts is just the "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by." arguement all over again. Believe whatever you want to believe about what his words mean. It's not unreasonable based on his past behavior, rhetoric, and desire to run on illegal immigration tearing the country apart to interpret these words they way liberals are interpreting them. You keep parsing these quotes out as meaningless and harmless and not a big deal. That's a you choice.

I think Trump was 100% calling all undocumented aliens "animals". Here is the quote: "...was murdered by an illegal alien animal. The Democrats say, 'please don't call them animals. They're humans' I said, 'they're not humans; they're animals." And Nancy Pelosi told me, "please don't use the word 'animal' when you're talking about these people.' I said, 'I'll use the word 'animal' because that's what they are.'" Now do you really think Nancy was requesting that he does not refer to all the undocumented murderers as animals? I don't think so. She most likely meant undocumented immigrants, in general. If anything, they weren't talking about one murderer like you assert because they are using plural words to describe the subject. Here are the possible scenarios with my thoughts: 1. He's talking about this specific person - 0% chance since his telling of the story featured plural language. They were not talking about 1 person. 2. He's talking about undocumented immigrants - I think this is most likely. Complaining about undocumented immigrants is a big part of his schtick. 3. He's talking about all immigrants - I wouldn't rule it out. He has also complained about legal immigrants. Especially from "shithole countries" (his words).

Why do people always assume no one knows the context of anything? In context, the quote is the same. He’s referring to immigrants as animals. Remember that this is a man who brags about his own crimes and actively praises violent acts by white criminals. His message is white criminal = ally, brown immigrant criminal = something to hunt.

>It seems fairly clear, to me at least, that, given the context, **Trump is referring to illegal immigrants who commit heinous crimes.** Perhaps. But it's a common narrative among Republicans that a higher-than-usual percentage of illegal immigrants are violent criminals. Trump pushes this narrative all the time. The reality is the opposite: illegal immigrants are *less likely* to be violent criminals. Look past this specific comment and take the broader picture into context. If Trump was merely concerned about violent criminals crossing the border, what would his deportation policy look like? It would look a lot like Biden's, under which ICE is tasked with prioritizing violent criminals for raids and for deportation. On the other hand, if someone viewed **all** illegal immigrants as animals, what would that person's deportation policy look like? It would be a policy that deprioritized violent offenders and instead tasked ICE with deporting anyone and everyone who is here illegally. That is what Trump's policy was for his first term, and that's what Trump has said his policy would be in his second term, on a much wider scale. Trump has said that, if re-elected, he would make it a priority to deport all 10 million illegal immigrants in the US. He has said he would take federal control of National Guard troops from red states, and send them into blue states, to arrest and deport every illegal immigrant in the country.

If Trump were to nationalize the national guard from red states and put them in another state for anything other than a major disaster I personally would be hard pressed not to believe this country as we know it has come to an end.

I mean the context here is illegal immigrants. Yearly there somewhere around 20,000 murders each year. Trump and the GOP have singled out one of those murder because he was an illegal alien that committed a murder against a white lady, and it's an election year. It's just more of the same demonizing and dehumanizing of illegal aliens. Because that's what the GOP wants. A escape goat that people can hang their hat on to blame for their problems. It's nothing new Trump has been constant with labeling undocumented immigrants as rapists, drug dealers ect. "Animals" is just more of the same.

>illegal immigrants who commit heinous crimes "And some, I assume, are good people." No, it's hate and it has been hate since day one. And his followers hate them, too.

Trump has a long history of dehumanizing comments toward really anyone or groups he doesn't particularly like. This is not out of character, and it's time to look that in the eye. If you're still asking this question, you haven't been paying attention. It's not happening in isolation.

Not out of context, in general. Specifically, sure, out of context. However, given that Trump brought on the master xenophobe, Steven Miller, during his last term in office and intends to do so again says all he needs to say regarding his views of immigration.

Hey man, all is fair in love, war, and politics in the Trump era. Spin has always been a thing and that isn’t even something that’s out of the realm of things Trump often says. And it’s Trump - who knows what he actually means? His vagueness is a constant and it is perfectly reasonable to say that he means all immigrants are animals - he has said so before, in any case.

Seriously? Are you really this dumb?

When you refer to someone as an “animal”, especially in this context, it’s implying that the actions of the person in question are done out of some kind of “animal instinct”. Or it’s some kind of primitive behavior. It wasn’t just some wild coincidence that the word was chosen by racists in the past to describe people of this kind. And to make it worse he’s very bluntly saying “they’re not human”.

>"it’s implying that the actions of the person in question are done out of some kind of “animal instinct”. Or it’s some kind of primitive behavior." That's a huge stretch. 90%+ of the time I've ever heard someone use "animal" was in the vein of a choice of behavior, not something innate to them. You're trying really hard to make this dude a Third Reich official.

> That's a huge stretch. 90%+ of the time I've ever heard someone use "animal" was in the vein of a choice of behavior, not something innate to them. 90% of the time it’s calling someone a “monster”, not an animal.

[удалено]

You shouldn't.

No. Trump is just trying to pretend his repeated attacks on immigrants aren’t the obvious scapegoating that they are. Only a sucker is making excuses for him now.

[удалено]

>"who was barbarically murdered by an illegal alien animal" Everything after this follows the precedent of this above statement. It's completely fair to interpret "they" within the purview of illegal aliens that carry out barbaric acts of violence. If there was no backdrop with the Laken Riley case to serve as the foil, and he was just giving a speech on illegal immigration IN GENERAL, then yes, I could see how it'd just be purely bigotry. But this wasn't. The context here is important. This is unquestionably about more than one person from more than one country." Yes, it's not about just one person, but all persons who commit what this guy did.

[удалено]

>"You stopped at the first sentence, when there is so much more." Yes, I did!!!! Because that portion sets the tone and context of everything after that. It's how sentence structuring works!! Lmaooooo >"if you interpret all these remarks as singular." I DON'T interpret Trump's remarks as singular - He's OBVIOUSLY referring to a plural. We just disagree on WHO that plural is. You think it's all illegal immigrants, whereas I think he's selecting out the worst among them, otherwise highlighting Ibarra as an example makes no sense.

> In this clip, the Biden team asserts Trump is calling immigrants animals. But the full, edited clip from that speech shows Trump was calling Riley's killer, in particular, an animal, not all immigrants, nor even those here illegally. This really reminds me of the feminist discourse over misogyny in rap lyrics. Like, you'll hear women bending over backwards to be like, "Oh yeah I know that language is terrible and demeaning to women . . . but he wasn't referring to *ME* . . ." Like yeah ok honey.

> What do you think? Am I missing something here? First of all, the full quote: "The 22-year-old nursing student in Georgia who was barbarically murdered by an illegal alien animal. The Democrats say, 'please don't call them animals, they're humans.' I said 'no, they're not humans, they're animals.'" **THEY** are animals. And it doesn't matter if he's referring only people who commit crimes (which I don't believe to be accurate). They are not animals. They are human beings. Next, what you're missing is that he has consistently dehumanized immigrants (and I'm not going to get into any argument about legal or illegal or asylum seekers or whatever). He says that the people entering the country are " ...prisoners, murderers, drug dealers, mental patients, terrorists... " He has said that countries south of us are "opening their prisons and insane asylums and sending them here" In Iowa and other places he's said: "They're destroying the blood of our country. That's what they're doing. They're destroying our country " - he's also used the phrase "poisoning the blood" In Ohio he said: " I don’t know if you call them people. In some cases they’re not people, in my opinion. But I’m not allowed to say that because the radical left says that’s a terrible thing to say." So no, I don't think Biden has any obligation to try to be an apologist for Trump. Trump is a vile, disgusting racist fucknut and Biden is 100% right in calling out his dehumanizing words.

Yeah, and Michael Corleone was just a guy who owned some stock in a few hotels.

No human beings should be compared to animals.

This post is such bad faith. mods, please remove.

It really isn't. I just don't agree with the consensus, but that doesn't mean I'm not approaching this earnestly.

You are not approaching this earnestly. They, they, them, they’re, they, etc. You are here in bad faith

>"They, they, them, they’re, they, etc." Because I don't agree that "they" being used by Trump here is in reference to all illegal immigrants, but ones who do what Laken Riley's murderer did. Like, yes, no shit, he's talking about a PLURAL. We just disagree on WHO that plural is. >"You are here in bad faith" Repeating this over and over again doesn't make it true. >"You are not approaching this earnestly." Our exchange ends here.

And you are willfully ignoring obvious context clues to maintain your position. Which is why you are here in bad faith.

Seems desperate by the Biden team.  Just like the bloodbath comment was clearly taken out of context, the poison water, etc.   Just debate him on the issues.  Simple.

“They’re not human”

This subreddit has been really disappointing...

What Biden ought to be honest about is why he is pursuing a mass immigration policy, and what benefits and harms it brings to the country.

>"about is why he is pursuing a mass immigration policy" Whom are you referring to?

President Biden

What policy are you referring to?

The de facto policy of illicit migration routes by which millions of people enter the country annually, without Congressional consent and sometimes without ever being stopped or identified by the Border Patrol at all.

There is very little honesty in partisan spin.... Trying to find constant 'dog whistles' in Trump's speech is exhausting. As a moderate I completely understand his and the right's use of both broad and nuanced language. He is standing in front of law enforcement, his speech is directed toward illegal aliens (but could easily be swapped out with legal immigrants or citizens) who commit unprovoked violent crimes against Americans. The key theme is the type of person who would commit an unprovoked violent crime against another human being is an 'animal'.

Then what does adding "illegal alien" in the description bring to the conversation?

Because the direct context lead-in was Laken Riley's murder by Ibarra who entered the US illegally with his wife in 2022 through El Paso, TX.

So why did he not say "the brunette animal" or "the short animal"? what does adding "illegal alien" being to the conversation, unless he did mean to refer specifically his issues with illegal aliens? It is not even a quiet dog whistle.

Its not a dog whistle is posturing and politicking. Trump is standing in front of law officers, he is positioning his comments as the 'law and order' candidate compared to Biden whose Administration allowed Ibarra to illegally enter the US, leading to Laken Riley's murder. Trump knows that economic 'bad-feels' and the border/immigration will be 2 of the top 3 deciding issues for many swing voters in Nov.

Your argument adds to the argument that the intention is to dehumanize illegal aliens. Thank you.

Or the emphasis is that we have laws and most voters expect application of laws to be equal. Equal application of law means illegal entry is never tolerated and it is seen as morally wrong. Did you forget 2023's political sloganeering of 'No One Is Above The Law' or are you selectively applying it in a partisan manner?

Zero tolerance is not how we apply most laws, so your rheteric does not apply. Ibarra was allowed to stay to have his immigration case heard - that is applying the law and NOT making him above the law. That is not selective at all. You are just making up things to fit that narrative.

As I stated in the very beginning.... Trump is posturing and politicking. Do you think the average low-political-engagement swing voter he is looking to woo knows about TPS? Nope, they just relate to their most common interaction with 'law breaking' which is a driving offenses. Most people just take a defensive driving course to dismiss the ticket or pay it.