You mentioned white supremacists, but I think you're focusing on a fringe and extreme element of the right in an attempt to discredit all right-leaning speakers. There are similarly fringe left-leaning speakers, and a lot of interesting, well-spoken, articulate folks in between, so I don't find this argument very compelling.
You can argue about to what extent his views are shared within the wider conservative movement, but when the conservative movement's democratically chosen leader supports an ideology like this, it is clearly not a "fringe".
I'm no Trump fan but this seems blatantly false. He seems to have been disavowing racists since the start.
Pandering to racists since the start:
* Initial refusal to rebuke David Duke.
* "Rapists" remark.
* Violence on "both sides".
* Not mentioning the Jews on Holocaust Remembrance day.
* No traditional White House Ramadan celebration.
* Attacking the hispanic judge in the Trump U case because of their race.
* Calling for and attempting to implement a "Muslim Ban".
* Appointing Jeff Sessions, who had been denied a judgeship due to his racist beliefs.
* The dog whistling about the lawless "inner cities".
* Supporting the birther theory.
The list goes on and on.
Even when he does rebuke racists, it's never prompt, and always with a wink and a nod. If you don't believe me, go peruse stormfront and look at all the threads celebrating their "victory" when Trump says these things, they recognize what's going on.
This "wink and nod" idea seems pretty tin-foil hat to me
The ones were Trump quickly condemned people shouting Nazi slogans without qualifications? Not to mention the vehicular murder.
Most issues have a gradient or contextual answers so I don't buy the argument that just because someone maybe wrong implying their opponents are necessarily correct.
The "pursuit of knowledge" predisposes that not all ideas are created equal.
That "fringe, extreme" element of the right holds the presidency of the United States; pretending they don't exist, or don't hold power is ridiculous in 2017.
That's decently non-moderate if not extreme as far as that debate goes.
Nice strawman with the gender thing. The nature v nurture debate will continue but the fatalist "genetics trump all" sort of thinking is pretty solidly false. And the amount of bad stats in trying to apply population level trends to self selecting sub groups is just mindnumbing (ie the school of thought around woman tend to have these traits ergo the self selecting group that go into this field must also follow that distribution).
As for the specifics of current progressive politics, I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far in direction of needless specific taxonomy; however that's a better state of affairs than the prescriptive "a man is this; not that" sort of thinking that dominated previous generations.
As a bisexual man Im a bit biased though; I think the average American is way too hung up on tying sexuality and gender into their identities.
>I will never vote for Donald Trump because I stand with certain principles. I stand with small government and free markets and religious freedom and personal responsibility. Donald Trump stands against all of these things. He stands for Planned Parenthood and trade restrictions and targeting of political enemies and an anti-morality foreign policy and government domination of religion and nastiness toward women and tacit appeals to racism and unbounded personal power. I stand with the Constitution of theUnited States, and its embedded protection of my God-given rights through governmental checks and balances. Donald Trump does not. I stand with conservatism. Donald Trump stands against it. I stand with #NeverTrump. ---Ben Shapiro
FYI Scientific evidence does not support your belief on the side of nature vs nurture
I feel like every time you say his name, he is getting more powerful.
Good piece on the Richard Spencers/Milos/white nationalists/white supremacists that came out of the woodwork recently:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/lets-just-stop-writin...