David Duke: Voting against Trump is 'treason to your heritage'

[Jazzhead]

The KKK also endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1984.  Several left wing radicals endorse democrat candidates for President.  Until a candidate seeks their endorsement, socializes with its members or attends one of their functions, a candidate is not "associated" with the radical group.

Understood.   But I didn't say Trump was associated with the Klan.  I wondered whether Trump supporters wished to be associated with this kind of racist slime.   

So far, I haven't seen the Trumpsters here object to Duke's statement in favor of Trump, or his reasons why. 

[mountaineer]

How should a candidate - any candidate - respond, if at all, to something like this, though? There's no evidence Trump asked for Duke, Code Pink or any other whackjob to say anything.

 When I ran for office, the only endorsements I actively sought were those of pro-life and pro-2d amendment groups. If it appeared in the newspaper that some idiot white supremacist or a communist had expressed his support for me, I'd have been mortified.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Two people approving of something Trump said in accord with their beliefs is not an endorsement from the organizations.

Try again.

Which is of course the disclaimer that will be included in all of Hillary's ads during the General Election.

[HonestJohn]

How should a candidate - any candidate - respond, if at all, to something like this, though? There's no evidence Trump asked for Duke, Code Pink or any other whackjob to say anything.

 When I ran for office, the only endorsements I actively sought were those of pro-life and pro-2d amendment groups. If it appeared in the newspaper that some idiot white supremacist or a communist had expressed his support for me, I'd have been mortified.

Here's how you deal with unwanted endorsements.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/02/us/reagan-spurns-klan-support.html

WASHINGTON, May 1— President Reagan, saying he had ''no tolerance'' for what the Ku Klux Klan represented, today repudiated the group's endorsement.

In a letter to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, the President said:

''Those of us in public life can only resent the use of our names by those who seek political recognition for the repugnant doctrines of hate they espouse.

''The politics of racial hatred and religious bigotry practiced by the Klan and others have no place in this country, and are destructive of the values for which America has always stood.''

A White House spokesman, Anson Frank, said that the President signed the letter while in China and that it was delivered today to Morris B. Abram, a Civil Rights Commission member who requested it after reading news reports that Klan leaders in Georgia had endorsed Mr. Reagan. (Endorsement Last Month)

When the Klan endorsement was first reported last month, neither the White House nor the President's re- election campaign committee would comment on it.

In his letter to Mr. Abram, the President said: ''While in China, I have been distressed to learn that some individuals back home have questioned whether my views on the Ku Klux Klan have somehow changed since 1980. Nothing could be further from the truth.''

[mountaineer]

As noted, the Klan hasn't endorsed anyone. It's just this one former Kook who publicly commented, and Trump could respond as Reagan did. Then again, would acknowledging Duke's comment at all be perceived as Trump giving Duke more attention than he deserves? I dunno. Could be a damned if you do/damned if you don't type of situation.

[kevindavis007]

Racial hate and economic nationalism.  Looks like National Socialism really is a conservative ideal.  As long as one accepts Trump as conservative, that is.

If that is true conservatism I want no part of it..

[kevindavis007]

Understood.   But I didn't say Trump was associated with the Klan.  I wondered whether Trump supporters wished to be associated with this kind of racist slime.   

So far, I haven't seen the Trumpsters here object to Duke's statement in favor of Trump, or his reasons why.

Which has me worried..

[GourmetDan]

As noted, the Klan hasn't endorsed anyone. It's just this one former Kook who publicly commented, and Trump could respond as Reagan did. Then again, would acknowledging Duke's comment at all be perceived as Trump giving Duke more attention than he deserves? I dunno. Could be a damned if you do/damned if you don't type of situation.

Unless you belong to the CBC, BLM, NBPP or the NAACP, in which case it's rainbows and unicorns all around...

"I'm sorry I had a fight in the middle of your Black Panther Party..."   

[EC]

How should a candidate - any candidate - respond, if at all, to something like this, though? There's no evidence Trump asked for Duke, Code Pink or any other whackjob to say anything.

 When I ran for office, the only endorsements I actively sought were those of pro-life and pro-2d amendment groups. If it appeared in the newspaper that some idiot white supremacist or a communist had expressed his support for me, I'd have been mortified.

God knows. I'm not fond of Trump, but this is one headache I'll pity him for, and one not of his making.

[EasyAce]

How should a candidate - any candidate - respond, if at all, to something like this, though? There's no evidence Trump asked for Duke, Code Pink or any other whackjob to say anything.

 When I ran for office, the only endorsements I actively sought were those of pro-life and pro-2d amendment groups. If it appeared in the newspaper that some idiot white supremacist or a communist had expressed his support for me, I'd have been mortified.

One could respond as did a certain New York mayoral candidate in 1965 when asked whether he, too, was cozy with racists, more or less:

MR. [GABE] PRESSMAN: Mr. [John V.] Lindsay has just said that you are running a racist campaign. Your reaction?

W[ILLIAM]. F. B[UCKLEY, JR].: Well, he went out of his way to say that I am not a racist. What he said is that certain
people of racist persuasion are agitating for me. Now, Mr. Pressman, I honestly don't know what to make of the situation. I saw for
instance a reference to somebody claiming to be a supporter of mine who made some reference to "not wanting bleep in Prospect
Park." Now I know enough about newspaper reporters to know (a) that the episode might not have existed at all, or (b) that he might
have said something very different. But in case such a person does exist, I want to say something to him: "Buster, I don't want your
vote. You go off to the fever swamps and get yourself your own candidate, because I'm not your man." The Negroes in the city---the
city belongs just as much to them as it belongs to any white man. There is no place for racism in New York City and there is nothing
that I have ever said or ever will say that will give any kind of help or encouragement to racism.

MR. PRESSMAN: Do you feel that there are any people supporting you who have racist ideas?

WFB: I don't doubt it for a moment. I don't doubt that there are Communists supporting Mr. Lindsay. We know there are
racists in New York, don't we? We know there are Communists in New York. There are presumably Nazis in New York. There are
vegetarians---there are kooks of every kind in New York. And each one of them is going to find his own candidate. The point is---
is it correct to infer from the existence let us say of a Communist voting for Mr. Lindsay, that Mr. Lindsay is a Communist? Obviously
not. There were people in that Vietnam parade yesterday calling for surrender in South Vietnam wearing Lindsay buttons. Am I
therefore justified in saying that Lindsay represents the forces of surrender in South Vietnam? Obviously not. That is the way of
the demagogue, and I am trying to resist demagoguery, and I wish that Mr. Lindsay would succeed half so well.

MR. PRESSMAN: And you repudiate any racist backing?

WFB: I don't even need to repudiate it, Mr. Pressman. To repudiate it is to acknowledge that there is some burden on me even to
go into the subject. And there is no such burden.

---William F. Buckley, Jr., in "Race, Religion, and Politics," from The Unmaking of a Mayor (1966). Buckley cited a partial
transcript from a local discussion show, Searchlight, on New York NBC, October 1965, moderated by Gabe Pressman.
(Pressman is still alive at 92 and working still for New York NBC.)

[mountaineer]

Buckley certainly was unique.   ^-^

[Formerly Once-Ler]

[mrclose]

Donald Trump.

Conservative hero.

Endorsed by the Klan, Code Pink and Planned Parenthood.

Did someone say pink Klan?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Buckley certainly was unique.   ^-^

Today's conservative movement is far estranged from Buckley's ideals and maybe further yet from that level of intellect.

[libertybele]

All I can say is OMG!  David Duke supporting Trump.  "Treason to Your Heritage"??  Wow.  This is the caliber of people that Trump is drawing in.  I realize he can't control who his supporters are, but, still, this should be a wake up call to his supporters to rethink Trump as president.  But on the other hand, Trump DID make the statement that he could shoot someone and people would still support him. 

[mountaineer]

All I can say is OMG!  David Duke supporting Trump.  "Treason to Your Heritage"??  Wow.  This is the caliber of people that Trump is drawing in.  I realize he can't control who his supporters are, but, still, this should be a wake up call to his supporters to rethink Trump as president.  But on the other hand, Trump DID make the statement that he could shoot someone and people would still support him.

I'm not keen on Trump, but the bolded phrase bears repeating. There's no evidence Trump courted this nutjob nor that he wants his support. It even may be that Duke was put up to making this statement by Trump's enemies. This campaign is so wacky, anything is possible. 

 Whether he responds, a la Buckley, remains to be seen.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm not keen on Trump, but the bolded phrase bears repeating. There's no evidence Trump courted this nutjob nor that he wants his support. It even may be that Duke was put up to making this statement by Trump's enemies. This campaign is so wacky, anything is possible. 

 Whether he responds, a la Buckley, remains to be seen.

That he hasn't responded is very much Trump. Any candidate would have worked to get ahead of the story and do damage control before the Daily News came out with the very expected front page. Trump however knows that his supporters will see the whole thing as an attack on Trump; he knows that he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and they would still support him. I don't even think he will bother addressing Duke, he'll just play the "I'm being victimized by the MSM" card and move on.

Trump COULDN'T respond a la Buckley.

[libertybele]

I'm not keen on Trump, but the bolded phrase bears repeating. There's no evidence Trump courted this nutjob nor that he wants his support. It even may be that Duke was put up to making this statement by Trump's enemies. This campaign is so wacky, anything is possible. 

 Whether he responds, a la Buckley, remains to be seen.

Trump is wacky. No doubt about it.

[EasyAce]

I'm not keen on Trump, but the bolded phrase bears repeating. There's no evidence Trump courted this nutjob nor that he wants his support. It even may be that Duke was put up to making this statement by Trump's enemies. This campaign is so wacky, anything is possible. 

 Whether he responds, a la Buckley, remains to be seen.

All Trump would have to do, if and when confronted with it, is say something along the line of, "No, I don't want the support of people like that. I
don't know who put them up to it or whether they thought it up by themselves, but those aren't the people I want." He hasn't got the intellectual
equipment to deliver a Buckley-type response, but he could dismiss the David Dukes and any such fever swampers with a simple statement such
as I just suggested.

Whether he would, of course, is something else entirely. And God only knows enough of his followers make him resemble Edmund Burke, never
mind that the reference would escape him (and no few of them, for that matter) entirely.

[EasyAce]

This just in from NBC:

Donald Trump says that he does not want the endorsement of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and that he would "certainly" repudiate his support.

"I don't need his endorsement, I certainly wouldn't want his endorsement, I don't need anybody's endorsement," Trump said in an interview on Bloomberg News.

Asked if he would repudiate an endorsement from Duke, he replied: "Sure."

"I would do that if it would make you feel better," he said, adding "I don't know anything about him."

Duke used his radio program last week to praise Trump's stringent immigration policy and call the real estate mogul "the best of the lot" of the 2016 candidates.

Trump demurred when asked to weigh in on reports that he is popular with white supremacist groups.

"A lot of people like me," he said.

Pressed about whether or not enthusiasm for his campaign from organized white supremacist groups means that something about his message is resonating for unsavory reasons, he replied: "I hope there's not."

[Emphasis added.]

Take it as you will. It can probably be taken several ways, and a few of those aren't exactly encouraging. (If he
really doesn't know anything about David Duke, he's a) incredibly naive, b) willfully ignorant, c) too damn dumb,
or d) take your pick.)

[Paladin]

Seems that several of you need to heed the words of the man you claim represents a much higher level of intellect and moral probity than does Trump.

"WFB: I don't even need to repudiate it, Mr. Pressman. To repudiate it is to acknowledge that there is some burden on me even to
go into the subject. And there is no such burden."

You anti-Trumpsters are truly a wonder to behold.

[alicewonders]

Seems that several of you need to heed the words of the man you claim represents a much higher level of intellect and moral probity than does Trump.

"WFB: I don't even need to repudiate it, Mr. Pressman. To repudiate it is to acknowledge that there is some burden on me even to
go into the subject. And there is no such burden."

You anti-Trumpsters are truly a wonder to behold.

"WFB: I don't even need to repudiate it, Mr. Pressman. To repudiate it is to acknowledge that there is some burden on me even to
go into the subject. And there is no such burden."

[EasyAce]

Apparently, Mr. Buckley's rather well known penchant for occasional coyness escaped
a few eyes. Otherwise, why would he deny a burden to repudiate something he'd just
repudiated? ;)