Whereas you believe Trump started the controversy, I believe biased reporting and quote mining started it, and references to such have continued ever since.
What you are calling quote mining is just the manifestation of the greater issue - in March of 2017 we saw one of the most overt and disgusting displays of racism and bigotry we’ve seen in decades culminating in the death of a counter protestor. And how did the President of the United States react to this? By blaming “both sides”.
Let me re-quote Trump’s words which you seem to think makes your point…
“You had a group on one side that was bad,” Trump said. “And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent.” He added, “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”
Why is it that Trump cannot just condemn racism and white supremacy, why is it that he always has to add to his condemnation by also condemning the “other side” from those he supposedly condemns or by going out of his way to defend the theoretical people who are not really white supremacist’s but just innocent bystanders who got caught up in it?
Answer: Because it’s not really a condemnation. It’s lip service. If you watched the news conference the following day, all of Trump’s emotion was directed at “antifa and the alt left”. He demonstrated very clearly that this is what he was really upset about. I don’t have numbers to quote for you, but I would challenge you to try the following experiment; read the transcript of that news conference, then count how many words Trump directed towards attacking the “Neo nazis” and compare that to how many words he directed towards attacking the people protesting them. Spoiler alert, it won’t even be close.
Condemning racism is (or at least used to be) the easiest task in politics.
Fact checking an accusation is… a fallacious distraction from addressing that accusation?
No, not fact checking “an accusation”, it’s about cherry picking the accusation you wish to fact check on the grounds that it technically fails while ignoring the greater issue.
This is like me pointing to a room with 100 people in it and saying everyone here is under age, then some idiot comes along and says “dUh, not everyone” because one person in the room just turned 18 yesterday.
The controversy around Trump is not that he has never before uttered the words “I condemn white supremacy”. Anyone can say that. It’s that he’s never conveyed that he condemns it and in fact has conveyed the exact opposite time and time again. If you want evidence of that all you have to do is go to any white supremacist event and take note of their attitude towards him.
