Food & Drink2 mins ago
Kkk For Corbyn
30 Answers
KKK leader David Duke (who he? Ed) endorses Jeremy Corbyn on "Anti-semitism".
How? Possibly by twitter, cheep or cluck. Who knows?
Responsible journalist presenting Sky's Press Preview makes all the obvious points:
"You can't choose those who 'support' a particular position of yours".
"Of course Jeremy Corbyn condemns the KKK".
"To use the David Duke 'endorsement' to attack Corbyn is a smear campaign".
The concept of guilt by association is better than its reputation: judge a man by the company he keeps makes some kind of sense - agreed? But Corbyn and Duke didn't swap Christmas cards, so all the above comments are pertinent and fair.
My question is, if guilt (by the most tenuous)association is unfair in Corbyn's case why was exactly this used as prime evidence in the attack on Trump?
How? Possibly by twitter, cheep or cluck. Who knows?
Responsible journalist presenting Sky's Press Preview makes all the obvious points:
"You can't choose those who 'support' a particular position of yours".
"Of course Jeremy Corbyn condemns the KKK".
"To use the David Duke 'endorsement' to attack Corbyn is a smear campaign".
The concept of guilt by association is better than its reputation: judge a man by the company he keeps makes some kind of sense - agreed? But Corbyn and Duke didn't swap Christmas cards, so all the above comments are pertinent and fair.
My question is, if guilt (by the most tenuous)association is unfair in Corbyn's case why was exactly this used as prime evidence in the attack on Trump?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vetuste_ennemi. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi is, as usual, wrong. The David Duke/Trump issue primarily revolved around Trump's reaction to it: when asked to condemn the KKK, David Duke etc., he professed to not having known anything about David Duke, or the KKK, and refused to condemn the KKK even when given the option several times.
Claiming that "I don't know anything about David Duke, I don't believe I've ever met him" was particularly interesting, because he'd discussed David Duke in 1991, and 2000 a couple of times: "..., you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party." -- when discussing (and dismissing) possibly running for president then.
But when it came to 2016, he spent quite a while being evasive about Duke and the KKK, and then appeared to disavow them to succour the media: "Sure, I would do that, if it made you feel better."
In short, then, the issue with Trump and the KKK came about not really because the KKK supported Trump, but because he seemed to have so much difficulty in accepting that this was, perhaps, a bad thing.
That aside, then, turning to Corbyn. I have not seen how Corbyn has reacted to the association with David Duke. This is, perhaps, not surprising, since the story is an older one. It shouldn't surprise me, though, if Corbyn were equally naive and slow to disassociate himself from the ex-KKK leader. After all, he's doing about as well on anti-Semites in general; why should one more racist make a difference?
Claiming that "I don't know anything about David Duke, I don't believe I've ever met him" was particularly interesting, because he'd discussed David Duke in 1991, and 2000 a couple of times: "..., you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party." -- when discussing (and dismissing) possibly running for president then.
But when it came to 2016, he spent quite a while being evasive about Duke and the KKK, and then appeared to disavow them to succour the media: "Sure, I would do that, if it made you feel better."
In short, then, the issue with Trump and the KKK came about not really because the KKK supported Trump, but because he seemed to have so much difficulty in accepting that this was, perhaps, a bad thing.
That aside, then, turning to Corbyn. I have not seen how Corbyn has reacted to the association with David Duke. This is, perhaps, not surprising, since the story is an older one. It shouldn't surprise me, though, if Corbyn were equally naive and slow to disassociate himself from the ex-KKK leader. After all, he's doing about as well on anti-Semites in general; why should one more racist make a difference?
Jim, I don't believe I'm wrong. When it comes to vitriol against the man no stone has been left unturned.
//Claiming that "I [Trump] don't know anything about David Duke, I don't believe I've ever met him" was particularly interesting, because he'd discussed David Duke in 1991, and 2000 a couple of times://
Discussed him a couple of times going on 20 and 30 years ago? Had he actually ever met him?
//Claiming that "I [Trump] don't know anything about David Duke, I don't believe I've ever met him" was particularly interesting, because he'd discussed David Duke in 1991, and 2000 a couple of times://
Discussed him a couple of times going on 20 and 30 years ago? Had he actually ever met him?
What a beautiful example of spin (predictions for the Test tomorrow, Jim?).
This contrived narrative rests on two implausible premises: one that Trump is a white supremacist, and (even if not the first) that he sees a political advantage in sucking up to an organisation with 5,000 members.
How's the high-energy physics (whatever that might mean) going, Jim?
a group with 5,000 members, not the millions who were power breakers in the South for the Democrtats. George Wallace? Lyndon B. Johnson even?
How's the plus in the early days of the Democrats
This contrived narrative rests on two implausible premises: one that Trump is a white supremacist, and (even if not the first) that he sees a political advantage in sucking up to an organisation with 5,000 members.
How's the high-energy physics (whatever that might mean) going, Jim?
a group with 5,000 members, not the millions who were power breakers in the South for the Democrtats. George Wallace? Lyndon B. Johnson even?
How's the plus in the early days of the Democrats
// When it comes to vitriol against the man no stone has been left unturned. //
This quasi-conspiracy would carry rather a lot more weight, but for the fact that most of the "vitriol" is completely justified. In any case, a President *should* be scrutinised pretty severely -- and no, Trump isn't unique in the scrutiny he's received, either.
As to the idea that maybe Trump had forgotten, I don't buy it. He was asked, repeatedly and clearly, to "condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke...", which is evidently enough to remind Trump who Duke is/was even if he *had* forgotten.
This quasi-conspiracy would carry rather a lot more weight, but for the fact that most of the "vitriol" is completely justified. In any case, a President *should* be scrutinised pretty severely -- and no, Trump isn't unique in the scrutiny he's received, either.
As to the idea that maybe Trump had forgotten, I don't buy it. He was asked, repeatedly and clearly, to "condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke...", which is evidently enough to remind Trump who Duke is/was even if he *had* forgotten.
How wouuld you view a president who removed all references to "Islam" and "jihad" from the training manuals of the US counter-terrorism agencies, Jim? And no "Islamic" terrorism.
Given the subtle inferences you can derive from Trump's silences and omissions, what read you in those of the Saintly Barack Obama?
Given the subtle inferences you can derive from Trump's silences and omissions, what read you in those of the Saintly Barack Obama?
Has Trump been associated with support from the clan ?
If he was, I don’t remember it.
Not sure an endorsement from the clan would aid Trump at all, he already has vast support from ordinary folk anyway. In short, a smear against Trump that the KKK supports him made no difference. And the same smear against Corbyn won’t work either.
If he was, I don’t remember it.
Not sure an endorsement from the clan would aid Trump at all, he already has vast support from ordinary folk anyway. In short, a smear against Trump that the KKK supports him made no difference. And the same smear against Corbyn won’t work either.
"This contrived narrative..."
Not really contrived, since there's no denying that Trump said anything in my previous post.
"... rests on two implausible premises: one that Trump is a white supremacist..."
This one is rather harder to comment on. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of labelling Trump a White Supremacist, but... well let's just say that he has form in not really condemning them strongly. I don't know what conclusions to draw from that myself, and will leave it there.
"...and (even if not the first) that he sees a political advantage in sucking up to an organisation with 5,000 members."
Who can say? I'm not sure that this was him aim, though. Maybe it was just a stumbling answer in the middle of a long interview, with a network that Trump doesn't get on with (understatement).
Not really contrived, since there's no denying that Trump said anything in my previous post.
"... rests on two implausible premises: one that Trump is a white supremacist..."
This one is rather harder to comment on. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of labelling Trump a White Supremacist, but... well let's just say that he has form in not really condemning them strongly. I don't know what conclusions to draw from that myself, and will leave it there.
"...and (even if not the first) that he sees a political advantage in sucking up to an organisation with 5,000 members."
Who can say? I'm not sure that this was him aim, though. Maybe it was just a stumbling answer in the middle of a long interview, with a network that Trump doesn't get on with (understatement).
// How would you view a president who removed all references to "Islam" and "jihad" from the training manuals of the US counter-terrorism agencies, Jim? //
This isn't quite true. There was a review in 2011, and the FBI did change its counter-terrorism training manuals, including some references to the Muslim Brotherhood being removed, but it certainly wasn't "all" references. In any case, the review was carried out by the FBI, wasn't ordered by Obama, and arose from a report that such material included the claim that "mainstream American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers".
If I infer anything from it, it's that you're prone to only half-remembering facts and then sensationalising them to try and excuse Trump's behaviour.
This isn't quite true. There was a review in 2011, and the FBI did change its counter-terrorism training manuals, including some references to the Muslim Brotherhood being removed, but it certainly wasn't "all" references. In any case, the review was carried out by the FBI, wasn't ordered by Obama, and arose from a report that such material included the claim that "mainstream American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers".
If I infer anything from it, it's that you're prone to only half-remembering facts and then sensationalising them to try and excuse Trump's behaviour.
//If I infer anything from it, it's that you're prone to only half-remembering facts and then sensationalising them to try and excuse Trump's behaviour//
All or any part of that may be true, Jim.
Based on the inferential assessment we all make on the limited evidence of a 2D world, though, do you really think I am using "half-remembered" facts and then "sensationalising " them to excuse Trump?
I can handle the accusation of senility, but you're accusing me of dishonesty. Aren't you?
All or any part of that may be true, Jim.
Based on the inferential assessment we all make on the limited evidence of a 2D world, though, do you really think I am using "half-remembered" facts and then "sensationalising " them to excuse Trump?
I can handle the accusation of senility, but you're accusing me of dishonesty. Aren't you?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.