I disagree with this rationale. If the white supremacists also all listen to Nickelback, would that tell you everything you need to know about Nickelback? Maybe it would, but as a discerning person I would want to know more than just "We like Nickelback and we hate <random_genealogy> people" before I assumed that Nickelback was mascotting for that group.
Yes you did not. I am not saying you did. But I made an observation on how Biden was given a free pass when he literally not just passed racist statements but passed bills that incarcerated tens of thousands of Black Americans and destroyed families. Providing a counter-balance to the biased narrative is important in this day and age. Media is completely biased. So is Big Tech with its censorship. When all streams of information are openly supporting one side it becomes even more important to speak out the Truth. I wouldn't have cared much if the media was evenly balanced. If it had taken both candidates to task. Had held both accountable. But the media has completely lost credibility. Even if I'll end up being disliked and downvoted for it so be it! But if I feel something is wrong I'll say it. No matter what people think.
> As I said the fact that actual white supremacists, not from the media via their own boards, believe Trump is there guy tells you all you need to know.
This is truly ridiculous to be honest with you. I am a brown guy. Does my view count or only what white supremacists say count for you?
See what Trump said about KKK and David Duke in 2000s when he aborted his Presidential Campaign (Reform Party).
> Trump was also a Democrat prior to Obama’s election
And he was a Republican prior to being a Democrat. It doesn't matter what party he belonged to. What matters is what views he held with respect to racism, KKK and white supremacy. It is more important to focus on views and policy than on party affiliations. Party affiliations mean nothing. Policy is everything.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-promotes...
I think everyone should watch this for themselves and decide whether the media's portrayal of what Trump said is reasonable and fair.
Then, several days later in the second interview[2] on August 15th that you linked to, he equates the violent white nationalists that murdered someone with what he calls the "alt-left", the purported group that the murder victim belonged to, saying that he thinks there is blame on both sides. After asking for further clarification, he says that there were fine people on both sides. Only after further questioning, and in a separate statement, does he condemn white supremacists.
People were criticizing him for his initial equivocation on August 12th, comparing the white supremacists who murdered a person to the victims of their violence, and the fact that he didn't name or condemn white supremacists. In fact, when journalists asked him to condemn them, he walked away from the interview. He refused to differentiate between the two.
Then, on August 15th, he defends his initial comments through his continued equivocations in the second interview.
It isn't unfair to criticize inappropriate equivocations, especially when it took him 4 days to muster out a condemnation, but still only after doubling down on the equivocations.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/12/tr...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-alt-lef...
"...we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charolottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides."
https://youtu.be/CMQWJDVg8PA?t=48
It seems like that is condemning the white supremacist doing the murdering, among others.
The BBC News article, while clearly biased against Trump, provides enough context to read between the lines.