Trump Uses Mount Rushmore Speech to Deliver Divisive Culture War Message

[Nepperhan]

Saying his speech was divisive because it is critical is “wildly inaccurate”

"(CNN)President Donald Trump delivered another deeply divisive speech to mark Independence Day on Saturday, comparing the US’s fight against Nazis and terrorists to his efforts to defeat “the radical left” in the US and accusing social justice protesters of trying to destroy America. "

“WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s unyielding push to preserve Confederate symbols and the legacy of white domination, crystallized by his harsh denunciation of the racial justice movement Friday night at Mount Rushmore, has unnerved Republicans who have long enabled him but now fear losing power and forever associating their party with his racial animus…”

“WASHINGTON (AP) — On a day meant for unity and celebration, President Donald Trump vowed to “safeguard our values” from enemies within — leftists, looters, agitators, he said — in a Fourth of July speech packed with all the grievances and combativeness of his political rallies.”

" WASHINGTON —

White House surrogates and GOP lawmakers struggled Sunday to defend President Trump after he spent the Fourth of July holiday weekend denigrating the racial-justice movement galvanized by George Floyd’s killing and playing down a deadly pandemic by claiming that 99% of coronavirus cases are “completely harmless.”

In a pair of divisive speeches delivered against backdrops meant to invoke traditional images of patriotism and national pride — the massive presidential monument at Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota on Friday and a fireworks-and-flyover celebration in the nation’s capital the next day — Trump hewed to a message aimed at his hard-line base, with little in the way of outreach to the country as a whole."

 

[hope]

No, saying the thread was divisive is a reasonable review of it.

Yes I agree you are trying to be divisive hence this thread.

Show me where he was calling on all Americans to solve their differences and come together.

Let us also send our deepest thanks to our wonderful veterans, law enforcement, first responders, and the doctors, nurses, and scientists working tirelessly to kill the virus. They’re working hard. (Applause.) I want to thank them very, very much.
There could be no better place to celebrate America’s independence than beneath this magnificent, incredible, majestic mountain and monument to the greatest Americans who have ever lived.
We gather tonight to herald the most important day in the history of nations: July 4th, 1776. At those words, every American heart should swell with pride. Every American family should cheer with delight. And every American patriot should be filled with joy, because each of you lives in the most magnificent country in the history of the world, and it will soon be greater than ever before.

Your view is that this is divisive. We should be tearing down our history. To condemn this is in your view divisive. Who is being divisive? Is it not those who disregard civility who are the ones who wish to divide this country? You want him to be like other wishy washy politicians especially the Republicans who have brought this country to destruction. You want them to do nothing as been the case for the last twenty years. You guise it under the false premise that it is unity and calming divisiveness. The truth is it is the bullies who are using this false cry. It is the bullies who crowd the streets who refuse to listen. You say that you read the speech than why didn’t you post your own opinion instead of others? So sad? You are right it is so sad that opinions are being shouted down. Lives are taken hourly. The only ones decried are those who have tangled with the law but those black lives slaughtered each minute are celebrated. Statues are destroyed but why isn’t Margaret Sanger decried and her organization dismantled? The hypocrisy is thick and it is beyond sad.

 

[hope]

I am really surprise that you would quote from such divisive sources. Could you post anything that these sources have ever said positive about the President.? Of course not, because they wish to further divide. Pointing out also that each quote you posted was again opinion not news. They support your opinion which is also divisive.

 

[Maxirad]

Um, is CNN’s “fact-checking” accurate?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/politics/fact-checking-trumps-fourth-of-july-speech/index.html

 

[JonNC]

But so is the socially conservative and unfailingly rigid far right. Both groups are destroying people’s individual rights

I’m not sure who you are describing as socially conservative, but please tell me how conservatives are destroying individual rights.

 

[PaulinVA]

Saying Italian Fascism was right wing is an assertion and needs your explanation.

Italian fascism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fascism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Position in the political spectrum​

Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum.[4][5] Such scholarship focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.[49][50] Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is “a radical variant of fascism”—on the political right by explaining: “The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be”.[51]

In the 1920s, the Italian Fascists described their ideology as right-wing in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism , stating: “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century”.[57][58] Mussolini stated that fascism’s position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue for fascists: “Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center … These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don’t give a darn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words”.[59]

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Note: JonNC was unable to come up with a single instance of any of these Presidents so terribly politicizing non-political events.

You want me to research events to disprove your ridiculous but not surprising charge?

I don’t care if you research it or not. But my friendly advice to you is that if you hope to convince anyone of your claim, you will want to research to the extent necessary to support your point.

Please. It is obvious that yours is just another complaint about bad orange man.

Well, orange man is bad, but my point does not rest on that fact.

But just as an example, President Obama’s politicizing the shooting in Roseburg, Oregon said this:

“… somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic."

You are proving the wrong point. He didn’t do it at the White House Easter Egg Roll, did he? Let me remind you of what you are looking for. You are looking for a non-political event comparable to the 4th of July celebration that some other President politicized. You correctly identified an issue that Obama politicized, but that is common - politicizing issues. What is uncommon is politicizing non-political celebrations like the the 4th of July or a visit by the Boy Scouts of America.

We are talking about the President. Not the Democratic Party. No President - Democratic or Republican - has ever so badly politicized non-political events like the 4th of July.

Prove it.

One cannot prove a negative. That is the job of someone who disputes the negative.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t care if you research it or not. But my friendly advice to you is that if you hope to convince anyone of your claim, you will want to research to the extent necessary to support your point.

The sun rises in the East.
Presidents use every opportunity to politicize.

Well, orange man is bad, but my point does not rest on that fact.

Better than a plethora of progressives in Washington.

Let me remind you of what you are looking for. You are looking for a non-political event comparable to the 4th of July celebration that some other President politicized.

Did you see the Kaepernick quote? It isn’t Trump who has politicized America’s Independence Day. Those who are attacking America as inherently racist, have tried to tear down statues of great Americans have politicized it. Trump’s response is spot on.

One cannot prove a negative. That is the job of someone who disputes the negative.

Prove it.

 

[Pattylt]

It sounds like you define any party you disagree with as left wing. What’s your definition of right wing? Thanks…

 

[Nepperhan]

Could you post anything that these sources have ever said positive about the President.?

That’s an ad hominem. Is what they have printed accurate or not?

Those were news articles by the way. I hope we have not entered cloud-cuckoo-land where pointing out a divisive speech is said to be divisive.

 

[hope]

That’s an ad hominem . I

A quote from the Princess Bride , " You keep using that word; I don’t think it means what you think it means ."

They are opinion pieces.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t care if you research it or not. But my friendly advice to you is that if you hope to convince anyone of your claim, you will want to research to the extent necessary to support your point.

The sun rises in the East.
Presidents use every opportunity to politicize.

Coupling a true statement with a false one does not make the false one true.

Let me remind you of what you are looking for. You are looking for a non-political event comparable to the 4th of July celebration that some other President politicized.

Did you see the Kaepernick quote? It isn’t Trump who has politicized America’s Independence Day.

Somehow I missed the Kaepernick Presidency. When did that happen? Remember, you are looking for a President (besides Trump) who politicizes non-political celebrations.

One cannot prove a negative. That is the job of someone who disputes the negative.

Prove it.

I should have been more pedagogical. OK, start by reviewing the principles behind “burden of proof”. And now for the pedagogical part. I did not initially make the negative claim that you are asking me to prove. My statement of the negative claim is simply a refutation of the positive claim you made previously. Since your positive claim precedes my negative claim, the burden of proof falls on you. The positive claim you made (and tried unsuccessfully to prove) was that there are instances of other Presidents doing exactly what I showed Trump did. So my saying “no such examples exist” is just a challenge to your prior claim that they do. As a practical matter, how would someone go about proving that no President ever did what Trump did? One would have to have an exhaustive transcript of every word spoken by every President at every non-political event. On the other hand, what does it take to prove that some non-Trump example exists? All it takes is a single citation. Perfect exhaustive knowledge is not necessary. If you, who has every reason to provide an example, cannot provide one, and if the readers here also cannot think of one, it is reasonable for them to assume the obvious, which is that Trump is unique in this regard.

 

[hope]

I hate left wing right wing. I find they are useless. We should be talking about content not about the leanings of that content.

 

[Pattylt]

I agree but so many continue to label people, it would help if I understood what they mean. Often, in order to move beyond name calling, we need to fully understand what someone means by “left wing”.

Sometimes, I find out that I don’t quite fit the definitions given.

 

[hope]

examples

You have a point about non-political event however, you conveniently leave out a couple of other points. I don’t think you can point to a another President enduring the same circumstances? The rioting, the destruction of property, tearing down of statues. Not to mention the hatred he had to endure from the Democratic Party and the news. Those circumstances put it out of the norm. You also limit the circumstances to fit your theory. You want to compare Trump to other presidents but yet you control those circumstances. Let’s expand it. Before Obama commented on a court case, it was unheard of for a president. He constantly threw oil on the fire of racial conflict. Now you want to limit to a specific time In order to prove your point.

 

[Nepperhan]

They are opinion pieces.

Actually, no. Those citations are from news articles which also found Trump’s remarks to be divisive. You criticize the speaker instead if what is spoken. That is an ad hominem argument.

Catalonia nationalist party is left wing.

From Forbes:

"During his speech, Trump derided a “new far-left fascism,” although he has referred to “Antifa” several times in his presidency. “Antifa” is supposed to stand for “anti-fascist.” Fascism is typically anti-liberal and anti-socialist, exclusionary, and nationalistic — it is known as a far-right phenomenon. For Trump to say that there is a “far-left” form of “fascism” means that he is contradicting himself, and supposedly railing against people that he now believes are simultaneously fascist and anti-fascist…

It is important to note that the words Trump used were no accident. This form of gaslighting, through language, is meant to divide and cause animosity towards an “other.” The purpose is to cause fear in his supporters, with the goal of supporters looking to him as a deliverer from these “evils.”

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Untrue. Prove it. Take any President of the last 100 years. You won’t find a single one that has so badly politicized non-partisan events.

The singular absolute worse case of this was Obamas State of the Union where he denigrated the 3rd branch of government.

Im sure that will be “different” in your eyes…

 

[hope]

(CNN)President Donald Trump delivered another deeply divisive speech

Stating it is deeply divisive is an opinion.

“

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s unyielding push to preserve Confederate symbols and the legacy of white domination, crystallized by his harsh denunciation of the racial justice movement Friday night at Mount Rushmore, has unnerved Republicans who have long enabled him but now fear losing power and forever associating their party with his racial animus…

This is so full of opinion starting with unyeilding push followed by harsh denunciation and fear of losing power ending with racial animus.

" WASHINGTON —

White House surrogates and GOP lawmakers struggled Sunday to defend President Trump after he spent the Fourth of July holiday weekend denigrating the racial-justice movement galvanized by George Floyd’s killing and playing down a deadly pandemic by claiming that 99% of coronavirus cases are “completely harmless.”

In a pair of divisive speeches delivered against backdrops meant to invoke traditional images of patriotism and national pride — the massive presidential monument at Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota on Friday and a fireworks-and-flyover celebration in the nation’s capital the next day — Trump hewed to a message aimed at his hard-line base, with little in the way of outreach to the country as a whole."

Using words such as struggle, denigrating and playing down are all opinions.

Could you post anything that these sources have ever said positive about the President.?

Actually, no. Those citations are from news articles which also found Trump’s remarks to be divisive. You criticize the speaker instead if what is spoken. That is an ad hominem argument.

I asked a question which I assume you could not answer. Ad hominem isn’t just criticizing it is an attack on the person and not what they wrote. I actually was questioning what was written. You have mischaracterized that it is an ad hominem.

 

[otjm]

If we have systemic racism in the US,

Systemic racism has been the mantra of the left Since Hilary lost the last election; and not one single person has shown any evidence whatsoever that racism is systemic in the US.

There is racism in the US - and you can take any race in the US and find individuals within those communities who are racist; but that does not make systemic racism. And there have been people on television claiming that only whites can be racist, which is an outright baldfaced lie.

So the first part of your sentence is a non-starter. If I were to do an in-depth research project of any police agency, I might find a small percentage of officers have racist opinions; and they may not all be white- or it may be that none of them are white; either way, that does not make that agency “systemically racist”.

You cannot fix what does not exist - here, a non-existing system of racism.

That is not to say that the police force/agency cannot remove officers who are found to be racist, but that is a different conversation.

You say that we do not have a uniting President; and I might agree with you; but there was tribalism when Reagan was President; when Bush Senior was President; when Clinton was President; when Bush Junior was president and when Obama was President; and none of them “united folks in a common interest” - with the possible exception of Clinton in his second term, when he was faced with a Congress of the opposing party.

“In our schools” - let’s take a look at the instantaneous comments labelling anything they don’t like as “hate speech” - meaning anything which does not comply with their liberal mindset. I would invite you to name the speakers invited to any campus in the US who were liberal, who were forced to not come to the campus to speak. I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation.

“Newsrooms” - I am not going to go into the number of individuals fired or “retired” who have dared to say anything not in accord with the liberal mindthink. They were all liberal, but dared to question the mantras, or suggest that there were other issues being ignored. Conservative news people? I invite your list.

“Corporations” - aside from Twitter and Facebook, I will point just one of many incidents; Boing fired an executive over an op-ed written 33 years ago, stating they did not believe women should be in combat roles - which at that time was the opinion of the great majority. But it is not woke enough now,

Anyone who has any honest review of China knows that opinions of any sort whcih do not match the Chinese Communist Party are retaliated against, from minor inconveniences to jailing. We are seeing the same pattern; speech is not only not free; it is high risk unless you mouth the current Leftist agenda.

So it would appear that like all too many Leftists, you will only be satisfied when someone comes into the Presidency mouthing the mantras of the far Left - not the Democratic Party of 15, 20 50 or more years ago, but the New Woke.

Not even Joe Biden is ready to swallow and repeat the mantras.

 

[otjm]

and dictatorship is strict government control at the expense of individual rights,

Mussolini was a dictator who adopted some socialist ideas but he was also strongly nationalist, so he had a blend of both left and right; an in the end he was strongly anti-Communist, which is certainly not a leftist position.