Trump Uses Mount Rushmore Speech to Deliver Divisive Culture War Message

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nepperhan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which is, Trump’s defense of America and her history and institutions at a time they are under attack.
We’ve already are having the discussion about this.

His speech was a defense of racist America and it’s institutions without any acknowledgement that they are rightly being scrutinized and called for what they are.
 
His speech was a defense of racist America and it’s institutions without any acknowledgement that they are rightly being scrutinized and called for what they are.
That is factually untrue and an indefensible slander against hundreds of millions of Americans.
America is not a racist country. It’s institutions are not racist. In fact, the broad accusation that they are is a racist accusation.
 
Last edited:
At a time when the nation is seeking reconciliation, Trump provides exactly what we don’t need:

" President Trump mounted an explicit defense of the Confederate flag on Monday, suggesting that NASCAR had made a mistake in banning it from its auto racing events, while falsely accusing a top Black driver, Bubba Wallace, of perpetrating a hoax involving a noose found in his garage.

Mr. Trump’s reference to the Confederate flag, and its role in a sport whose mostly white fans Mr. Trump remains popular with, was the latest remark by the president focused on culture wars as he tries to rally his culturally conservative base behind his struggling re-election effort."

 
Using the term “thugs,” referring to protesters or even rioters is a dog whistle for “black people.”
My how we get all bent out of shape over the way criminals are referred to, but given the preponderance of white thugs among the rioters it’s not clear why anyone would assume it referred specifically to blacks. Then again, I’m not up on who chooses to be offended by what. This is the kind of invented outrage that has become so common.
There is no doubt in anyone’s minds who he is talking about there. He is dividing the county according to their beliefs about confederate statues.
That you introduce the qualifier “confederate” when talking about the destruction of statues shows both that you recognize the real issue even as you want it ignored. The concern is not “merely” with the removal of confederate statues; it is much deeper than that. What we are seeing is an attack on virtually all (they left Lenin alone) statues that celebrate our past. Nor is the destruction solely the work of hordes of thuggish, overgrown delinquents. Mayors are getting into the act, fostering the same goal by directing work crews to remove major city statues, like Kit Carson in Denver, and Christopher Columbus in…Columbus, OH.

It is either deception or wishful thinking to hold that our history and culture are not under attack.
Likewise, he is again attacking his political enemies.
This assumes his observation that there is an “attack on our liberty” that “is completely alien to our culture and our values” is wrong. The actions we have witnessed suggest his claim is accurate. The people most opposed to Trump are those who correctly recognize him as the strongest force opposed to their objectives. The “unification” they seek is in surrender, which is why his confrontational approach is so upsetting…to the left anyway.
 
Trump is only partially correct. The far-left extremists, bereft of reason, are moving the country toward a strange kind of totalitarianism. But so is the socially conservative and unfailingly rigid far right. Both groups are destroying people’s individual rights although they ostensibly have very different agendas.
Someone else brought up this duality between far left and far right but failed to identify what constitutes the far right. Can you indicate some positions you consider to be far right as opposed to merely right?
 
Unsurprising to see a race-based accusation coming from the NYT.
Is the accusation (really a description) accurate or not? Or do you stand on just criticizing who the speaker is?

Where is the accusation here? " Mr. Trump’s reference to the Confederate flag, and its role in a sport whose mostly white fans Mr. Trump remains popular with, was the latest remark by the president focused on culture wars as he tries to rally his culturally conservative base behind his struggling re-election effort."
 
Only in the Democrat lexicon. They seem to be very familiar with how to use it that way.
What does “young buck on welfare eating T-bone steaks” conjure up in your mind?
 
Last edited:
No, the term ‘buck’ has a different connotation in the southern venue where it was uttered.
 
Is the accusation (really a description) accurate or not? Or do you stand on just criticizing who the speaker is?
Oh, it clearly isn’t.
On two fronts: 1) it frames NASCAR in the implication it is racist. That assumes facts not in evidence. I would never fly the Confederate flag because it symbolizes the worst part of our history and the Democrat Party
2) NYT often babbles in race-baiting and has hired people with dubious beliefs about race, the so-called 1619 project.
 
Sorry. I’ve never heard the phrase before, but it sounds like a criticism of young men who could be working, but are not.
Reagan used the phrase to denote black males cheating on welfare, so you are close. Of course, Reagan had no verification of his claim.

See? Folks of any political stripe can pick up on the ‘dog whistle’ comments.
I’ve lived in the south since I started college in the 70’s. A “young buck “ describes a healthy, strong young man.
Then you are unfamiliar with southern colloquialisms.

" strapping young buck

From a 1976 speech by Ronald Reagan, who complained of “strapping young bucks” using public assistance to buy T-Bone steaks, the phrase is shorthand for “undeserving and lazy black people living off hardworking white taxpayers instead of getting a job.” Many commentators have noted that the phrase originated from the auction block. Now used ironically by liberal commentators to identify racist dog-whistles in conservative argument."

"buck
Code:
pl. bucks or a male deer, antelope, goat, rabbit, etc.
the act of bucking
    buckskin
    [pl.] casual oxford shoes, originally of buckskin, now usually of light-colored suede, nubuck, etc.
Informal a young man, esp. one who is bold, lively, vigorous, etc.: sometimes a contemptuous or patronizing term as applied to a young black or North American Indian man
Archaic a fop or dandy"
I think your comment borders on an intent not to understand the secondary meaning.
 
Last edited:
As I noted, historians are divided on the issue; your opinion is one side of the coin, to which there are two sides.

I don’t exactly have a dog in the fight, other than that people make statements as if they were the authority on the matter; my point being the authorities are divided.

It clearly was about power and control. Most dictatorships, if not all, are about power and control; and there are dictators on both ends of the spectrum.
 
What is more accurate is that you have not accepted any evidence of systemic racism in the US. That I can believe. But that has more to do with what you will accept than what actually qualifies as evidence.
I await your evidence.
There was tribalism, but nothing that would make Reagan turn a 4th of July celebration into an attack on the Democrats.
That is called a red herring; I did not say that any of those Presidents made attacks on the opposite party. I said there was tribalism during those presidencies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top