It's truly sad that so many people lack the education and understanding of the history of white supremacy in the United States.
Dog-whistling is nothing new here, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a bloody duck. Let's not pretend Trump does not have a long documented history of racism, going back to before the 80's and the litany of lawsuits against him in regards to him not renting units to black families. We have innumerable firsthand accounts from his very friends and colleagues of his spoken racism. We've heard it countless times from the man himself, black people come from "shithole countries".
But here we are on this forum, debating and arguing whether the very white supremacist groups that support Trump, the groups that he dog-whistles and panders to, are even racist in the first place.
Have any of you educated yourselves on the history of David Duke, and the "new-KKK". It isn't new to see white supremacist groups evolve their public stance to be deemed more "acceptable" in a current political climate. Back in the 70's, the Klan did just that, reform their public image to appear more "clean" more acceptable as a hate group:
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/defa...-of-Racism.pdf
Nowadays, and even back then, Klan members would claim they are not
white supremacists":
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/kkk-oth...abel-1.3198090
On face, this is laughable. Groups such as a Proud Boys, and their similar iterations are merely a further evolution on the idea of white nationalism, packaging a hate group in a more palatable public facade. You go to any of these group's forums, you will see the true nature and hate of these groups.
It's amazing how we can get pulled into these semantic arguments, in my many years of following politics, I've never seen a politician like Trump awarded these obtuse excuses and esoteric counter arguments by his supporters. Sometimes I wonder if these arguments are genuine, or if they're made in guise. It is a waste of time to argue such people who put these points forward, they are being disingenuous in their views, it's all about "winning" the argument.
Either way, I felt Biden looked weak on stage to be honest. Trump looked terrible as always, he's an awful man, woefully inept, and his performance illustrated that. There were many times in the debate where it seemed Biden was flustered or taken back, I was frustrated to see him not utilize very basic arguments to counter the lies coming out of Trump's mouth. Often times he allowed Trump to lie, walk all over him, and not respond with an easy rebuttal.
You can tell his age is a factor, though these two men only share mere years between each other, it was quite apparent Biden was the much older man figuratively speaking.
He needs to go back to the drawing board the next two debates, his strategy IMHO was flawed coming in. The truth is, you can't debate Trump. He's a boldfaced liar, a narcissistic sociopath. He can lie to your face boldly, smile, and not feel any shame or remorse.
That type of person is difficult to debate when you can't fact check on the fly. If you notice, when Trump is interviewed one-on-one, where the interviewer can directly challenge and fact check his answers, he falls apart. On the debate stage however, he's able to bypass that process, which works in his favor.
I'd much rather see them do away with the debates entirely, and simply conduct long form interviews in which pointed questions are asked, and their platform and agenda is fully scrutinized.
