>> Trump was asked to condemn "white supremacists and [right wing] militia groups" and was pretty equivocal and strangely reluctant to do so. That's the story.

>> Trump was asked to condemn "white supremacists and [right wing] militia groups" and was pretty equivocal and strangely reluctant to do so. That's the story. > That's really not the story. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white- https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-... which that source is left-leaning to be fair. That article is from February and about some falsely-precise statement Biden made. The story here was Trump's debate performance, which was not in February. >> The Proud Boys were just an example that was thrown out by Biden. > Admittedly I dont see who says it exactly but from my ears, it's CNN saying it. Again this is just entire fallaciousness anyway. The left-wing seems to be consistently just calling the right-wing racists. Sam Harris discussed this with John McWhorter. What are you talking about? The video I posted was from CNBC, not CNN. Neither of those organizations did anything except cover the debate, so there's no way they could have said anything. The moderator was a Fox News reporter. Biden made the statement, which can be easily confirmed by looking at other easily-found videos that chose to display the candidates in a side-by-side view. That can also be easily inferred from the video I posted: you had three speakers: the voice wasn't Trump's, it wasn't Wallace's, so by process of elimination, it was Biden's. Your confused take on this very well-documented event pretty thoroughly undermines your position that somehow access to raw clips on the internet is going to let you and other people do a better job at learning the truth of what happened than the mainstream media. Figuring out who said what in a US presidential debate is an extremely easy thing to do. The right wing does seem to have more racists on display right now. I say that as someone who affiliated with the right until recently. For instance, the president himself has publicly said some obviously racist things and many more dog whistles, though his lying and bad communication skills often give a motivated partisan enough smoke to come up with some unbelievable alternative explanation. > That's not how I see the situation. The 'viral' videos even today only have 200,000 views. They weren't viral. The whole story went viral when Nathan Philips was brought in to be portrayed as a victim. Subtly implying racism and saying this isn't boys will be boys.... > The focus on the proud boys is just part of the media's ploy. The media's ploy? You're talking about them like they're some conspiracy. They're not, by the way. The problem with this mistrustful, conspiracy-theory attitude towards the media is that it's usually a step to falsehoods and confusion masquerading as truth. That's very useful to unscrupulous partisans and other salesmen, who are happy to create and exploit the situation. That's not to say the mainstream media is perfect, far from it, just that when people reject it they almost always seem to substitute it with an inferior product (from the perspective of truth, at least).