5 ms·

I agree that "stand by" does sound problematic, but I would let is slide as a slip up, given that the moderator asked whether he will tell them to "stand down"

I agree that "stand by" does sound problematic, but I would let is slide as a slip up, given that the moderator asked whether he will tell them to "stand down" -- it's an easy mistake to make (and talking about slip ups, Joe Biden has more than enough of them as well). You can see Donald Trump denouncing Proud Boys here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc&feature=youtu.be&t=245 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc&feature=youtu.be...

nmfisher 6y ago
I'm glad it's not just me who thinks this. I think Trump is an absolutely foul human being, but "stand by, stand back" was clearly a fumbled response to the moderator's request that he call on them to "stand down". Painting it as some siren call for white supremacist supporters to rise up and take the nation by force is just as disingenuous and hypocritical as Trump himself.
- zjs 6y ago
  The next day, he was asked point-blank by reporters what he meant and whether he misspoke. His response was to: 1. Say that he didn't know who the Proud Boys are. Even the most generous interpretation of this doesn't look good. He was asked to denounce them during the debate and either (a) attempted to do so (fumbling the response) without knowing who they were or (b) it was an intentional dodge — and either way, he didn't follow up with his staff to learn more. 2. Say that they need to "stand down" and "let law enforcement do their work", but not condemn them (i.e., still fall short of the ask during the debate, when given a chance to correct the fumbled response). 3. Dodge an explicit question about whether he misspoke when he said "stand by" (again, failing to fully correct the fumbled response). 4. Continue to shift away from criticism of right-wing groups to left-wing groups. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-093020/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-pres... > Painting it as some siren call for white supremacist supporters to rise up and take the nation by force is just as disingenuous and hypocritical as Trump himself. When right-wing groups interpret it as a siren call and he fails to unequivocally correct that interpretation, it's not disingenuous to be concerned.
  - nmfisher 6y ago
    That just simply reinforces my view that Trump is just a childish buffoon who will never admit he made a mistake about anything, and is incapable or unwilling to give a straight answer to any question. He's the type of person that screams until he's blue in the face that water isn't wet, simply because someone not on Team Trump said that it is. That doesn't mean he's some secret conspiratorial white supremacist talking in code. It just means he's a juvenile idiot. I'm not saying that the second is somehow better than the first. It's not. They're both equally despicable and I have zero respect for Trump being the former. But it's equally reprehensible to have a crowd on the sidelines chomping at the bit to exaggerate, fabricate or concoct stories, simply because they don't like someone. It's "he's not our guy, so the end justifies the means", and it's an incredibly disturbing trend that goes beyond Trump.
    - zjs 6y ago
      > That doesn't mean he's some secret conspiratorial white supremacist talking in code. > ... > But it's equally reprehensible to have a crowd on the sidelines chomping at the bit to exaggerate, fabricate or concoct stories, simply because they don't like someone. I'm confused. Where in this comment chain does what you describe seem to be happening? The closest I can find is the great-great-great-great grandparent, which states “The guy had armies of white supremacist supporters and advisers. He told right-wing extremists to “stand by” on national TV.” From my perspective, the key here is that right-wing extremists interpreted his words as code — and he refused to correct that interpretation. From the point of view of the extremists, it was intentional, and that's enough to embolden them. Even though it was likely the result of a mistake and stubbornness, it was damaging to the country and the impacts are worth acknowledging. At this risk of taking a bit of a tangent: it's not as if this is the only time his carelessness with his words and stubbornness to correct the way they were interpreted caused problems. In those cases too, we need to acknowledge both the cause and the effect. Accidentally causing damage and intentionally causing damage are distinct problems, but they're both problems — especially when you're the leader of a country.
      - nmfisher 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zjs 6y ago
I'd be more willing to let is slide as a slip up if not for the surrounding context — both during the debate, and during the days following. The whole premise of the question (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHhB1ZMV_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHhB1ZMV_o) was his criticism of Biden for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups, and whether he'd be willing to "condemn white supremacists and militia groups" and "say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence". Mistake or not, he didn't condemn the proud boys during the debate. If it was his intent to do so, when it became clear that large portions of the country misunderstood his remarks — including the proud boys themselves — he should have clearly communicated his intended message, instead of dodging questions about his remarks for 2 days. (See, e.g., https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-093020/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-pres...)

nmfisher 6y ago

I'm glad it's not just me who thinks this. I think Trump is an absolutely foul human being, but "stand by, stand back" was clearly a fumbled response to the moderator's request that he call on them to "stand down". Painting it as some siren call for white supremacist supporters to rise up and take the nation by force is just as disingenuous and hypocritical as Trump himself.

zjs 6y ago
The next day, he was asked point-blank by reporters what he meant and whether he misspoke. His response was to: 1. Say that he didn't know who the Proud Boys are. Even the most generous interpretation of this doesn't look good. He was asked to denounce them during the debate and either (a) attempted to do so (fumbling the response) without knowing who they were or (b) it was an intentional dodge — and either way, he didn't follow up with his staff to learn more. 2. Say that they need to "stand down" and "let law enforcement do their work", but not condemn them (i.e., still fall short of the ask during the debate, when given a chance to correct the fumbled response). 3. Dodge an explicit question about whether he misspoke when he said "stand by" (again, failing to fully correct the fumbled response). 4. Continue to shift away from criticism of right-wing groups to left-wing groups. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-093020/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-pres... > Painting it as some siren call for white supremacist supporters to rise up and take the nation by force is just as disingenuous and hypocritical as Trump himself. When right-wing groups interpret it as a siren call and he fails to unequivocally correct that interpretation, it's not disingenuous to be concerned.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  That just simply reinforces my view that Trump is just a childish buffoon who will never admit he made a mistake about anything, and is incapable or unwilling to give a straight answer to any question. He's the type of person that screams until he's blue in the face that water isn't wet, simply because someone not on Team Trump said that it is. That doesn't mean he's some secret conspiratorial white supremacist talking in code. It just means he's a juvenile idiot. I'm not saying that the second is somehow better than the first. It's not. They're both equally despicable and I have zero respect for Trump being the former. But it's equally reprehensible to have a crowd on the sidelines chomping at the bit to exaggerate, fabricate or concoct stories, simply because they don't like someone. It's "he's not our guy, so the end justifies the means", and it's an incredibly disturbing trend that goes beyond Trump.
  - zjs 6y ago
    > That doesn't mean he's some secret conspiratorial white supremacist talking in code. > ... > But it's equally reprehensible to have a crowd on the sidelines chomping at the bit to exaggerate, fabricate or concoct stories, simply because they don't like someone. I'm confused. Where in this comment chain does what you describe seem to be happening? The closest I can find is the great-great-great-great grandparent, which states “The guy had armies of white supremacist supporters and advisers. He told right-wing extremists to “stand by” on national TV.” From my perspective, the key here is that right-wing extremists interpreted his words as code — and he refused to correct that interpretation. From the point of view of the extremists, it was intentional, and that's enough to embolden them. Even though it was likely the result of a mistake and stubbornness, it was damaging to the country and the impacts are worth acknowledging. At this risk of taking a bit of a tangent: it's not as if this is the only time his carelessness with his words and stubbornness to correct the way they were interpreted caused problems. In those cases too, we need to acknowledge both the cause and the effect. Accidentally causing damage and intentionally causing damage are distinct problems, but they're both problems — especially when you're the leader of a country.
    - nmfisher 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zjs 6y ago

I'd be more willing to let is slide as a slip up if not for the surrounding context — both during the debate, and during the days following. The whole premise of the question (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHhB1ZMV_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHhB1ZMV_o) was his criticism of Biden for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups, and whether he'd be willing to "condemn white supremacists and militia groups" and "say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence". Mistake or not, he didn't condemn the proud boys during the debate. If it was his intent to do so, when it became clear that large portions of the country misunderstood his remarks — including the proud boys themselves — he should have clearly communicated his intended message, instead of dodging questions about his remarks for 2 days. (See, e.g., https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-093020/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-pres...)