Trump Uses Mount Rushmore Speech to Deliver Divisive Culture War Message

[otjm]

Is it that Democrats cause riots? If so, you are confusing cause and effect.

I am surprised you needed to ask. No, they did not “cause” the riots; they failed to provide adequate support and protections to the businesses which were fire-bombed, and allowed the riots to continue instead of responding.

And actually I do have a point, one you choose to ignore; and that is that the Democratic councils have called rioters “protesters” and let them fun amok. Anyone with any sense of history, going only as far back as the 1960’s and 1970’s knows that when passions become inflamed, there will be people who will move beyond peacefully protesting and start rioting; the wise councils will move in quickly to remove agitators who are attempting to change a peaceful protest to a riot, while allowing the peaceful protest to continue.

Big cities can continue to choose council members who will not act to maintain the peace, and they will continue to reap the multi tend of millions of dollars of damage, until those with common sense either support candidates who will move to maintaining law and order, or they will move out of the large cities to other areas.

I get where your sympathies are and I am not going to debate the matters with you; only to note that you are one of those who will continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.

People who are smashing windows for no other reason than blood lust are not protesters; they a;re criminals, along with those who fire bomb businesses and those who go on looting rampages. Violence was done to Mr. Floyd; that does not justify massive violence of rioting. And I have yet to see a riot rectify whatever excuse may have been made to start the riot or continue it.

 

[JonNC]

Reagan used the phrase to denote black males cheating on welfare, so you are close. Of course, Reagan had no verification of his claim.

When did he say he meant black males?

See? Folks of any political stripe can pick up on the ‘dog whistle’ comments.

You haven’t sourced your charge.
Your “source” also doesn’t Quote Reagan saying he meant young black men.

 

[JonNC]

Actually is describes it as mostly white. Are you calling mostly white groups racist?

No. I’m calling the description By the NYT as racist.

 

[JonNC]

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.

And you, of corse, are welcome to your opinion.

 

[otjm]

Reagan used the phrase to denote black males cheating on welfare, so you are close. Of course, Reagan had no verification of his claim.

So I guess those women on welfare who had no man in the house (as was required in order to receive) got pregnant by sitting on a toilet?

It was Johnson who signed into law the welfare package, and it was and continues to be that welfare package which has done such a phenomenal (and terrible) job of assisting in the destruction of the black families.

And no, I am not suggesting that Reagan’s comments were even civil; I would certainly say they were clearly racist; he could have said it far differently; and even more importantly, he could have championed a change in the welfare law. But to say he had no evidence flies in the face of reality. And Planned Parenthood stood ready to “assist” these poor women to"rectify" the “problem”.

 

[otjm]

And you, of corse, are welcome to your opinion.

I don’t recall saying I had an opinion; I said that historians were divided.

 

[JonNC]

I stand corrected.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Which of course is irrelevant to the claim I made.

 

[Nepperhan]

And no, I am not suggesting that Reagan’s comments were even civil; I would certainly say they were clearly racist; he could have said it far differently; and even more importantly, he could have championed a change in the welfare law. But to say he had no evidence flies in the face of reality.

I hate to digress but:

1. Reagan was shown that his ‘welfare queen’ recital was false about the particular woman he cited but he kept it up anyway.
2. Reagan said “Young bucks on welfare eating t-bone steaks while you can’t afford hamburger”. I’ve never seen verification for that.
3. The point is that Reagan knew exactly what his images he created in folks minds and he was race-baiting.

 

[Nepperhan]

When did he say he meant black males?

Read between the lines with sagacity. Must one draw you a picture?

No. I’m calling the description By the NYT as racist.

Wrong, actually.

 

[Feanor2]

2 more dog whistles used by the alt-right.

“Protect our culture and way of life”.
“Defend Western Civilization”.

 

[JonNC]

Read between the lines with sagacity. Must one draw you a picture?

In other words, because he was white, he must have meant black men?
Am I properly reading between the lines?

 

[JonNC]

Protect our culture and way of life”.
“Defend Western Civilization”.

Hogwash to both.
Let’s remember that our culture does more to protect individual rights than any other.
Let’s also remember that slavery was abolished in the west long ago. That can’t be said about many others in Asia, Africa, the Middle East.

But how about this. How about I assume, without evidence, that the accusation in your post is actually a dog whistle for violent anti-American groups like Antifa and racist intersectionality proponents?

 

[JonNC]

Where does he say he meant black men? What was the context of the comment?
Is it always racist to criticize blacks for a particular activity?if some black men are not working and providing for their families, is it racist to point that out? Would it, therefore, be racist to criticize white men in the same way?

 

[MikeInVA]

As an American, I have never heard the term used in a racial way.

 

[JonNC]

Oh, goodness, a young buck has been used for all different kinds of young men. I’ve heard teachers refer to students that way.
And I’m not defending anything but the iDea that the accusation of racism in America is effectively a death sentence for one’s reputation. If we’re going to make that accusation we better be absolutely certain it is true.

 

[JonNC]

I thought higher of you than that, Jharek.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let’s remember that our culture does more to protect individual rights than any other.

But it is better at protecting some people’s rights than others.

Let’s also remember that slavery was abolished in the west long ago.

Well, on paper, yes. Practically, …sort of. In Europe, slavery was abolished about the same time as in America - actually 20 or 30 years before America - but once it was done, there was no counterpart to the “Jim Crow” era for them. This was evidenced as recently as 1943 when an all-black unit of American GI’s in Britian found themselves in a gun battle with the white Military Police, also American. It makes some interesting reading. I won’t repeat the whole think here, but it seems the US military authorities wanted the Brits to impose a color ban in the pub in Bamber Bridge, but the Brits - who were much more accepting of blacks - would have no part of it and responded by posting on the pub “Black Troops Only”.

 

[JonNC]

Definition

A young buck; an adventurous, impetuous, dashing, or high-spiritedyoung man.

That is the definition I know and have heard. I was raised in the Northeast but have lived more than 45 years of my adult life in the south. Never once have I heard the term used as a racial slur.
Reagan was raised, as I recall, in the midwest. He lived most of his adult life in California.
Not one here has provided evidence that Reagan meant it as a racial slur.

Ronald was not a racist.

“I’ve lived a long time,” President Reagan told the National Council of Negro Women at the White House in July 1983, “but I can’t remember a time in my life when I didn’t believe that prejudice and bigotry were the worst of sins.”
He meant that literally. Racism, to Ronald Reagan, was a sin. Reagan learned that at home, as a boy, from his devout Christian mother and from his father.
Any Reagan biographer can tell you of an anecdote from a cold evening in Dixon, Illinois, in the early 1930s, when a young “Dutch” Reagan brought home two African American teammates from his college football team. The boys, William Franklin “Burgie” Burghardt and Jim Rattan, had been denied access to a local hotel because of the color of their skin. Burgie was Reagan’s best friend on the team; he played right next to Reagan on the offensive line. Reagan assured them they would be welcomed at his home. The two boys weren’t so certain. Sure, their friend seemed like an amiable guy, but these boys knew what it was like to be black in those days of rampant discrimination. Would the parents of this nice kid, Dutch, be as kind as he was?

On Ronald Reagan’s ‘Racism’ - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

There’s a provocative article by NYU professor Tim Naftali in the Atlantic titled “Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon.” It

spectator.org

 

[JonNC]

But it is better at protecting some people’s rights than others.

So improve our efforts to ensure everyone’s rights. That’s something we are far better at than ever before, but we need to get even better.

Well, on paper, yes. Practically, …sort of. In Europe, slavery was abolished about the same time as in America - actually 20 or 30 years before America - but once it was done,

Actually, it was after America.

there was no counterpart to the “Jim Crow” era for them.

True. An awful continuation of oppression and discrimination. This was truly institutional racism.

Question: do we seek to ensure that all Americans’ rights are protected, or do we tear down rights?