Ooh, “insipid”! Big vocab word there. You are trying to aim a little higher. I’ll give you credit for that much.
It’s not complicated. What you are saying helps Trump. A way to try and help Trump is to try and make yourself out to be liberal, but then bring up “concerns” about how Trump is treated.
Granted, I don’t think you’re doing that. I think ASL is too new and does not know how to read people on this board. He’s not been around for your whole anti-Trump career. He hasn’t seen that you are just very odd with your beliefs, while not realizing how different they are.
Still, he has a point. The thing you are doing looks identical to concern trolling. You’re upset that the Democrats, who genuinely believe that what Trump is doing is racist, are calling him racist. You’re playing into the narrative that the Democrats are too mean to Trump.
The long con idea makes no sense–you’re too weird and too obviously not an actual liberal. But the idea that this thread, in isolation, can be seen as pro-Trump? Sorry, it kinda looks that way. Same as other threads I’ve seen of this nature by other posters.
Is that the reason I’m the only one who thinks SlackWit is a concern troll? Oh, wait…
@ASL_v2.0 no one is correct 'til BigT deems them so.
BigT is the board’s moral and ethical compass.
CMC
Precisely. 
ETA:
There are plenty of others who don’t, but they still dislike me pretty intensely so don’t really care to “stick up” for me. I am the rare person online who actually consistently sticks up for the DNC and for mainstream Democrats, both of which online progressives loathe. And they can’t abide my politically incorrect views on race or gender.
“very divisive” - sure, but from my perspective all recent Republican speeches (starting with Reagan?) tend to an us vs them theme. The #tweeterinchief didn’t seem to break any new ground. Otherwise I do agree with your comments.
Yes. I’m pretty sure everyone else replying in this thread just hates him, and realize that you are getting under his skin. People do that.
His stated beliefs are too weird for him to be trying to pass as a normal liberal. It’s not that I’m a fan–it’s that he’s openly supported white nationalist talking points. And one has to try and pass as part of the in-group to concern troll.
So, yes, I do think that anyone who actually has paid attention to SlackerInc’s posts would not actually think he was a concern troll.
That is my argument, anyways. If you or @crowmanyclouds disagrees, you are, as always, free to actually argue how I’m wrong. I’m not the moral arbiter–I just argue certain moral things very passionately.
Well, for starters, I will have to ask here why is it that after all that back and forth, the OP is missing why is that the media did complain about the speech at Mount Rushmore. Anyone with a simple Google search would had realized that in the context of Black Lives Matter and the pressure from many to remove confederate statues, Trump choose to hide behind statues that will not likely be affected, and pretended that most peaceful protesters and most people in the USA would go against the historical figures at Mount Rushmore, The polling clearly shows that Trump is having another thing coming at him. And the OP willfully ignoring that does look like concern Trolling.
It was less about the speech and more the place the Agent Orange choose to make his speech.
The whole thing does exudes concern Trolling when the elephant in the room is ignored to disparage the media in an effort that is not different to what Trump does constantly.
Oh, GIGO.
The Mt. Rushmore speech was AFAIK planned long before the George Floyd protests. And it rings hollow to say that there is no effort on the left to “cancel” the figures on Mt. Rushmore, when all four of the men on it have recently had statues torn down or taken down by officials under political pressure (Teddy Roosevelt in NYC, Abraham Lincoln in DC, Washington and Jefferson in Portland). And Trump’s speech, carefully written by some White House speechwriter and presumably vetted by many others, very carefully did not defend Confederate statues.
However, again: it’s a whole different deal when Trump speaks off the cuff and reveals what he really thinks, rather than reading from a teleprompter. Within two days of that Mt. Rushmore speech, he was attacking NASCAR’s only black driver and defending the Confederate flag. And of course he said there were “very fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville. Etc. My “defense” is basically not even of Trump, but of the people who actually wrote that Mt. Rushmore speech.
A lot of this is accurate, but the “openly supported white nationalist talking points” is very misleading hyperbole, considering that I’ve consistently supported reparations for slavery, dramatically higher funding for inner city schools, etc. White nationalists generally have aggressive hostility against the black underclass; I feel sorry for them, just as I do for other groups that got a bum deal in the life lottery and can’t succeed in life without a lot of help from the rest of us. Therefore in policy terms, in almost all respects I am aligned with mainstream Democratic politicians, or in fact even a bit to their left.
Does “as far as you know” mean you have some inside information, or does it mean “I have no real idea when it was actually written”?
It means I read that somewhere (or maybe heard it on a podcast), but I don’t remember where exactly so I don’t have a cite.
ETA: I wasn’t saying the speech was written that long ago, only that the decision for Trump to go to Mt. Rushmore and give a speech was made a while back. And my saying that was specifically in response to GIGO saying “It was less about the speech and more the place the Agent Orange choose to make his speech.”
About the speech being planned, that was not the issue, the issue was that before it took place calls to cancel the use of the location came because of the current issues, and that was not only because of the corona virus.
As for the statues, there is again your patented willful ignorance of the context. In the case of the Roosevelt statue the controversy was because of the other figure included with the Teddy Roosevelt one:
The American Museum of Natural History in New York announced the Theodore Roosevelt monument located at the museum’s entrance will be removed following years of protests.
The Equestrian Statue in front of the Museum has long been controversial for the racial hierarchy it depicts. The Museum has asked that it be moved. More: https://bit.ly/2AJd60s pic.twitter.com/m99Bl1EEFT
— American Museum of Natural History (@AMNH) June 21, 2020
It’s not that Roosevelt is particularly controversial. Rather, it’s the manner in which he and two figures are depicted that has garnered outcry. The bronze statue, which has stood in its current location since 1940, depicts Roosevelt atop a horse. He is flanked by a Native American man and an African man.
Critics say the statue is racist because it depicts the African man and Native American man as inferior, with New York Mayor Bill deBlasio further describing them as “subjugated” and the statue “problematic.”
Speaking to the New York Times, the museum’s president, Ellen Futter, said the museum’s “community has been profoundly moved by the ever-widening movement for racial justice that has emerged after the killing of George Floyd.”
President Donald Trump reacted to the decision, tweeting: “Ridiculous, don’t do it.”
Ridiculous, don’t do it! https://twitter.com/washtimes/status/1274844372094390278
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2020
Roosevelt’s great-grandson, Theodore Roosevelt IV, in a statement to the New York Times, concurred with the decision, writing: “The composition of the Equestrian Statue does not reflect Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy. It is time to move the statue and move forward.”
So, there is that, and also it remains that you’re ignoring the context of what was happening when the speech took place, that was very naive for the OP.
Forgot to add:
And it was very, very naive to ignore that when Trump did harp about preserving the monuments, and preventing the values, history, and culture, to not be taken from the American people, we know enough about Trump to realize that for him “American” is about a peculiar type of values, history, and culture. Trump did not condemn the culture that was being represented by the statues that were being removed. When he was talking at Rushmore nor before that or later.
No, that’s not the media coverage I was referring to. Maybe I erred in not making it clear, but any criticism of Trump for not canceling the rally is 100% legit. So is criticism of the campaign for doing really egregious things like fastening folding chairs together to prevent social distancing, and not requiring masks. The result was a crowd packed in together with very few masks visible. That’s awful.
I was never talking about any of that, just the coverage of the content of the speech itself. There are maybe one or two lines in the speech that push a little further than other Republicans in the past would have gone. A little. But for example, CNN ran a piece titled “The 28 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump’s Mount Rushmore speech”. Among the 28, which number I assume was a quota issued before the speech came out?
“General Washington did not claim power, but simply returned to Mount Vernon as a private citizen.”
“[Jefferson] was an architect, an inventor, a diplomat, a scholar, a founder of one of the world’s great universities, and an ardent defender of liberty.”
“Lincoln won the Civil War. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation. He led the passage of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery for all time.”
Outrageous. 
If everything is always pegged at eleven, we become desensitized for when the media really does need to drive home how outrageous or dangerous a development is. (Kind of like how I have noticed that every night on the CBS Evening News, they do a dramatic push-in with the camera and have Norah O’Donnell breathlessly declare “Breaking News!” with an alarmed expression on her face. Every. Single. Night.)
The idea that Jefferson was a “defender of liberty” is pretty offensive.
There is that, and one has to notice that the racism that was a part of the statues (in the case of Roosevelt it was the figures that accompanied his statue) is one item that the Slacker is not touching.
As it is the clear implication that Trump was not separating the confederate statues from the of the ones that represented the values, history, and culture that was ‘not to be taken from the American people’.
Do you think a majority of Americans would agree with you about that? I mean, when Ralph Nader was asked on PBS Newshour in 2000 who he would see as a model for his presidency, his immediate answer was “Jefferson, obviously”. Thomas Jefferson was no Jefferson Davis.
Joe Lieberman, everyone. How about a big round of applause
I agree with what I understand your point to be. If we , or the media, criticize Trump for EVERYTHING he ever says or does, the people who we are trying to convince that he is an idiot, liar, con man etc, will just dismiss us. It doesn’t matter that 99% of them will dismiss us no matter what our arguments are, it’s that 1% that will decide the election. Less than 1% where it matters… 75,000 votes in PA, WI and MI got Trump elected. There are literally 100 reasons Trump should not be re-elected. This speech is not one of them
I don’t have the link, but the Wall St. Journal had a piece about this very subject. The gist was that the liberal media distorted the content of the speech, saying Trump was in support of the legacy of the Confederacy, which he did not mention by name. Some of the voters who will decide this election read the Wall St. Journal, or listen to friends who do. And if they read that they may dismiss any criticism of Trump by other publications as Trump derangment syndrome.
This election, every vote counts.