Donald Trump is too silent on police brutality and right-wing violence

The argument

Donald Trump has failed to condemn white supremacists and is uncritical of the police even when they do wrong. Trump wants to increase police powers and when asked why black Americans are killed by police, he answered “so are white people”. He has also compared acts of police brutality to golfers who “miss a 3-foot putt” and “choke”. Trump also has consistently missed opportunities to condemn white supremacist supporters. In 2016, he did not condemn an endorsement from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and in 2017 he said there were “very fine people on both sides” after violent clashes between white supremacists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. Trump also defended Kyle Rittenhouse, who is accused of murdering two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Most recently, during an election debate, Trump told Proud Boys, a violent far-right all-male group, to “stand back and stand by”. These examples not only reveal Trump's far-right sympathies, but they undermine his attempt to present himself as the candidate of law and order - he is critical of violence only when it is politically convenient. If Trump won a second term, his political opponents would have legitimate fears for their safety and capacity to see justice. Biden is much stronger in criticising far-right and police violence, and will protect all Americans.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Trump said "I don't know who the Proud Boys are" and is focused on the left-wing violence across American cities organised by antifa. He has also called for far-right groups to "stand down", showing that he does take the threat of violence from the right seriously. Biden has not been strong enough in condemning violence from the left, including from antifa. For more on this, see 'Joe Biden has not condemned the recent wave of riots strongly enough'. Political violence from all sides of the political spectrum should be condemned, and so Joe Biden will not be better than Donald Trump on criminal justice.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Rhetoric is not policy, and the premise runs the two together. On criminal justice specifically the record includes the First Step Act, a sentencing and prison-reform measure passed with support from both parties, which the argument does not weigh. [Rejecting P2] Each episode listed is contested: the speaker later said he did not know who the Proud Boys were and called on them to stand down, and supporters read the "both sides" remark as referring to the violence rather than to the ideology. The premise presents disputed readings as established. [Rejecting P3] The comparison is asserted rather than shown. The counter argues the same standard should apply to violence from the left, and the premise offers no account of what either candidate would do on prosecution, sentencing, policing or clemency — which is what the question asks.