Discussion: 'The President Is Not A White Supremacist': Mulvaney Defends Christchurch Response

[dddinah]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[gregor]

“What do you want the President to do?”

He is the fucking president, and you are his fucking COS, and you are asking a news reader to tell you what to do?

[zlohcuc]

You’ve seen the President stand up for religious liberty, individual liberty,” Mulvaney responded. “The President is not a white supremacist, I’m not sure how many times we have to say that.”

That you are having to say it over and over and that millions of people worldwide mysteriously believe it to be so surely has some significance. We understand that the cowardly drips in Trumps orbit are reluctant to try to reign him in…that doesn’t mean other people can’t see what is manifesting before their eyes…it is bad enough that we see and hear the horrific rhetoric emanating from Trump and the feeble minds that parrot his misguided screeds…we don’t have to accept his worldview, for the time being,we can oppose him fervantly until conditions change and leadership is restored in the WH.

[zlohcuc]

His mommy?

[eisenst]

Mulvaney is closed minded, ideological idiot who thinks he a policy expert. He’s an even stupider version Paul Ryan.

And he needs to lose the glasses. He looks like some kind of asshole Harry Potter!

[gharlane]

Matt – and most of the rest of the media – ignored Chris Wallace’s question, and thus ignored that Mulvaney’s reply was a non-answer to the question.

Wallace:

I agree the president is not responsible for this, but has he considered, given the fact that some people seem to feel that he has given them cover, has he considered giving a major speech condemning anti-Muslim white supremacist bigotry? To the degree that there is an issue with white supremacists, white nationalists, anti-Muslim bigotry in this country — and there is an issue with that — why not deliver a speech condemning it?

Mulvaney’s immediate response:

[stammers a bit, then] You’ve seen the Prsident stand up for religious liberties, i-individual liberties, you – the Prsident is not [starts laughing] a white supremacist. I’m not sure how many times we have to say that."

Huh?

At the risk of belaboring the obvious:

1. Wallace did not ask if the White Supremacist In Chief was a white supremacist.

2. Mulvaney never answered Wallace’s actual question – what would be wrong with delivering a speech condemning white supremacism?

3. Wallace gave Mulvaney all the cover he should have needed – hey, Mick, he’s not a white supremacist, but hey, there do seem to be some folks who, um, “misunderstand” him, so wouldn’t it be a good idea to correct the record and condemn WS unequivocally?

4. Mulvaney makes the claim that Individual-1 “stand[s] up for ‘religious’ liberties” – hmm, religious, huh? Yeah, that’s a dodge. Sure, “religious” liberties for the particular brand of white Christian Taliban who are his base. Muslims? Jews? I’ve never heard that.

Of course Individual-1 could never do that, not without losing a significant chunk of his base, who do seem to believe (however, um, “mistakenly”) that he’s a WS, and they also seem to approve of that fact.

Revealing that Mulvaney found it necessary to disclaim a question that was never asked, an “accusation” that was never made.

I’m not a journalist. It’s journalists who should be pointing this out.

[gharlane]

I can never figure out whether that poor chimp is laughing or crying.

[inversion]