the headlines around the debate are that trump failed to denounce "white supremacism" (whatever that even means.), and it's kind of typical of the media coverage around him over a long period of time.

there's this persistent media slant that trump is a closet nazi. it goes back years and years.

but, the actual reality is that trump doesn't know who these groups even are. if presented with a list of christian charities and white supremacist groups, he wouldn't know which was which. he's consistently hesitated to attack these groups, for the simple reason that he just doesn't know who or what they are.

trump made it clear enough that he was willing to condemn any specific group if presented with one, but the moderator failed to do it. he expected trump to know who the white supremacist groups on the ground actually were, and the truth is that he simply didn't. and, i can empathize to an extent, because i couldn't identify any of these groups by name either, and i might be hesitant to condemn something that i just don't know anything about, as well.

the truth is that you could very easily trick me into condemning a fairly timid christian aid group as a white supremacist group if i wasn't careful about it, as i really wouldn't know the difference, off of the top of my head. now, i'm not the president; maybe he should know who these groups are. but, he's made it clear on repeated occasions that he really just doesn't know who they are at all.

so, this idea that trump "failed to denounce white supremacism" should fail a fact check and be given a rating of a heaping pile of baloney or whatever other facile thing you want to say; instead, the media is blaring it everywhere, as it does.

he was, however, right to point out that the premise of the question was flawed - the violence in these regions was created primarily by black activists, and not by white supremacists, who came into the region afterwards as vigilante groups. now, i'm not justifying any of the violence that occurred; i'm not in any way in support of vigilante justice. but, the facts are what they are, and they are that the root of the problem is with the black militias (who initiated) and not with the white militias (who reacted).

biden's lines about how his kid wasn't a loser, or how he was an itty bitty cathowic boy, likewise came off as utterly pathetic. if he was trying to stir some kind of empathy, it completely failed. i'm supposed to feel bad about his murderous piece of shit son? yes, joe - your son was a loser, and you're a loser, too. or react with anything but scorn to his catholicism, which is one of the most horribly oppressive systems of thought ever invented in the history of the world? like, get real.

i don't have a lot of positive things to say about trump, except that it sort of felt good to watch him lace into biden like that - when trump landed hits, they felt right, even if his positions felt wrong, and, when biden reacted, i just wanted to tell him to shut up and go home.

i realize that i may be reflecting the fact that i really have a strong level of deep-seated hate directed at joe biden. as much as i dislike trump, i legitimately hate biden and everything he represents and everything he stands for.

but, i'm not retreating from my position that trump completely destroyed him in the debate, even if the country is too stupid to realize it, in the end.