I’m not even going there, @doogie.
I just want to know three things:
Why were the place and date chosen? Strategically; what is the Goal of the Trump campaign?
Why do Trump’s Supporters think the date and place were chosen?
As a Trump Supporter; what does the date and location say to you?
Thank you for the honesty, @doogie…! (Especially number 3, Even if I DO think Trump’s campaign knew exactly what they were doing.)
trump cannot back out now. To move the date or location is an admission that he is seen as offensive to black people in this country (which is why there is so much outcry).
His best play would be to release more press about the awful tragedy of the Tulsa massacre, and celebrate the abolition of slavery. At the speech he should fire up the crowd, but steer very clear of negatively addressing anything related to BLM or the protests- stick with anti HRC and democrat/pelosi stuff… you know, stick with the basics.
Not a chance of it happening, @Californiagrown.
(Sorry. My bad. I am reading Trump’s mind. I don’t know what he will say or do…)
I can see how it would be insensitive, if you believed that the Trump Administration is racist to the core to begin with.
If you don’t believe Trump is racist to the core, there’s no reason why holding a campaign event in Tulsa is problematic at all. It is a major US City, why not hold a campaign event in Tulsa during an election year?
What makes it divisive? Trumps actions or people’s reactions to Trump?
Let’s assume, for a moment, that Trump is not, in fact, a racist. Let’s assume that this date was chosen for mundane reasons. I know, this is a stretch for a lot of people, but hold on to this idea a bit longer.
Why would you change things up to satisfy a bunch of people who think you’re rotten anyway?
Meanwhile, our cities continue to burn because the left has been extremely successful in advancing the narrative that America is a deeply racist nation with a deeply racist police force. They’ve achieved this in the face of study after study that shows otherwise and the complete eradication of race-based policies written into law by parts of the US Government.
Now that the left-wing brown shirts have been deployed in force you may very well see real-life, flesh-and blood white supremacist militant political gangs shaping up. You need to seriously weaken society for those guys to get any traction, and starting riots and getting weak politicians to stand down and let it all happen is how you do it.
But yes, that racist Trump is at it again, dividing the nation with all of his racist policies!
Why would they do that? How big do you think the white supremacist demographic is? Why risk turning off moderates to appeal to a TINY fraction of the voting public.
This is dead on accurate.
Both.
While I think divisiveness can surely be driven more by peoples actions than other’s reactions (or visa-versa); than is the nature of divisiveness.
The reality is that Trump has personally driven much of the divisiveness.
With the amount of loonies out there, emotions and vitriol being stoked by all especially trump, and with this rally seemingly taunting trump opponents and black society in general, the secret service will have their hands full.
If i was a Tulsa resident or business owner i would be pissed that Trump might be inviting mayhem to my city.
It isn’t completely unsupported to believe this. Stuff like “good people on both sides” makes it plausible that Trump is pandering to this crowd. It could be he is just really bad with words, or other explanation.
There are more examples, like cabinet members like Miller who have racist backgrounds. There is a lot of smoke, but maybe no fire.
Another point on divisiveness.
Remember when President Obama was painted as “The most divisive President ever”? (I will give Trump credit for changing that perception for many people).
I think that it was more people’s reactions to what he said and did than his actual actions. (All of which I expect many to disagree on. So be it.).
Policy positions are, by definition, divisive. Disagreement will happen, and that’s part of having a position that you either agree with, or not.
Holding a campaign event is not, by definition, divisive. It is part of campaigning for office. You need to to choose to assume nefarious intent and choose to be upset by it. You can’t lay that at Trump’s feet. A president campaigning for re-election is not a divisive action.
And that seems to always be your narrative, @twojarslave.
The Right sits innocently by while holding up the core values and morality of the Country while the Left runs amok leading to the downfall of Western Civilization…and Racism? Naw…it’s all Strawberry Fields and Roses because laws were re-written, and the “facts” prove it.
There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides to explain where we are at this point in history.
That’s not a narrative. It is happening in the streets, right now.
I mean, if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore ALL of the context associated with reality, then saying trumps tulsa rally is not divisive is a fine argument to make.
I’m not. I just don’t buy the reasoning. Tell me what I’m missing.
The reasoning seems to be that Trump should show deference to all of the people who believe that holding a campaing rally in Tulsa Oklahoma on June 19th is somehow a beyond-the-pale signal in support of slavery and/or white supremacy.
If he doesn’t, Trump is being divisive.
Do I have that right?
It would seem to be as divisive to hold an NRA/guns rights rally in Columbine, CO on April 20th. Or in Newtown, CT on December 14th.
How about an Islamic parade in NYC on September 11th? Would you consider that divisive? I sure would.
If you believe Trump and his policies are racist to the core, that makes perfect sense.
Do you believe Trump is advancing a white supremacist agenda? If so, why?
Do you consider access to guns and the NRA the cause of those school shootings? Do you consider muslims in general to be the cause for 9/11? If no, would those three events i described be considered divisive to you?
No i dont think trump is advancing a white supremacist agenda.