We’re getting so far into the weeds here it’s ridiculous.

Let’s get back to the heart of the matter: The only way you can say that Trump saying “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally” is actually evidence that he IS racist is that you want to believe that he is, and no extremes of logic or sense will convince you otherwise. You’ve decided that he’s racist, and by golly, you’re going to interpret everything so support that, regardless of logic or common sense.

So congratulations, you’re living in that alternate reality cited in the OP. I hope it won’t shock you too much, when Trump wins, that all the people who voted for him don’t turn out to be sexist racists who shoot Democrats; you may have to resort to microaggressive penumbras to support the false-to-facts reality you insist upon.

We’re done here.

The page won’t let me respond to your comment below.

But your argument is that a militia turned up to the protest, and they were the group to which Trump was referring.

But the militia weren’t there “to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name”, to quote Trump.

So the militia weren’t the group to which Trump was referring.

Salient points from the factcheck (and no, I can’t really make the column wider in this theme):

***

***

The day after Trump’s Aug. 15 news conference, the New York Times quoted a woman named Michelle Piercy and described her as “a night shift worker at a Wichita, Kan., retirement home, who drove all night with a conservative group that opposed the planned removal of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee.” She told the Times: “Good people can go to Charlottesville.”
***
“We came to Charlottesville, Virginia, to tell both sides, the far right and the far left, listen, whether we agree with what you have to say or not, we agree with your right to say it, without being in fear of being assaulted by the other group,” Shoaff says.
***
During the video, a militia member who is black appears on screen, and Shoaff sarcastically says, “Hey, look, hey, there’s black guy in here, oh, my God.” At another point, an unidentified militia member says: “We are civil nationalists. We love America. We love the Constitution. We respect any race, any color. We are all about respecting constitutional values.”
***
So what’s going on here? Anti-government militia groups are not racist but tend to be wary of Muslims and immigrants, according to experts who study the Patriot movement. “By and large, in my experience militia groups are not any more racist than any other group of middle-aged white men,” said Amy Cooter, a Vanderbilt University scholar who has interviewed many militia members. “Militias are not about whiteness, not about racism,” but their anti-Islam feelings spring from fear and ignorance of Muslims, she said.
***
“Militias started showing up at events where left-wing elements would be, and that includes white-supremacist events,” Pitcavage said. “They aren’t white supremacists. They are there opposing the people opposing the white supremacists.”
*********
Proof: Non-neo-Nazis were opposing the counterprotesters.

All of which means… that you’re correct, I do not take Trump’s statement as evidence of racism. I will further state that any attempt to prove this somehow it meant opposite of what he said is because you WANT to believe he’s racist. It’s bizarre wishful thinking, like the novelist I quoted in my original post. It’s without merit. It’s frankly laughable, and I honestly feel embarrassed for you if that’s the strongest evidence you have for your use of the 21st century’s Official Worst Accusation.

I would modify a) to say “significant numbers of people who weren’t neo-Nazis”, but fundamentally, yes.

I read the fact check to which you linked.

It concludes “The evidence shows there were no quiet protesters against removing the statue that weekend. That’s just a figment of the president’s imagination. The militia groups were not spurred on by the Confederate statue controversy. They arrived in Charlottesville heavily armed and, by their own account, were prepared to use deadly force — because of a desire to insert themselves in a dangerous situation that, in effect, pitted them against the foes of white supremacists.”

So I assume you’re taking the view that the Washington Post’s account is false.

But “I’ll just refer you to…” seems to imply that you thought it supported your position.

So all I have to do is indicate that either (a) there were people other than neo-Nazis in the protest, or (b) there was good reason for Trump to believe that there were, and we’re done, right?

Then I’ll just refer you to the Washington Post fact-checker: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine-people-charlottesville-who-were-they-2/

Seriously, go back and look at the case you’ve constructed through these comments. If that’s the “proof” you have that the Right is racist, I consider my point to have been proven.

This is easily demonstrated to be false, as follows:

Donald Trump praises the attendees at a convention as good people.

Wait a minute, says the left. That was a convention for pedophiles.

Someone using your argument above would say that it doesn’t matter if the convention was a pedophile convention or not, as long as Trump added “…but I don’t support child abuse.”

Um, no, it DOESN’T matter.

Your contention was that Trump was praising neo-Nazis.

I showed that he wasn’t; he was saying that there were good people on both sides, entirely separate from the neo-Nazis.

No matter the proportion of neo-Nazis to people who just didn’t want the statue removed and the park renamed, Trump was very distinctly, explicitly, and clearly NOT praising neo-Nazis. Your contention that this is evidence that he is racist is invalid. Full stop.

You seem to be undecided between two positions:

i) There were significant numbers of non-Nazis present as protesters, and those were the people to whom Trump was referring.

ii) The protesters were Nazis, and Trump mistakenly believed that non-Nazis were present.

These are, obviously, significantly different positions–it doesn’t seem to be a case where one can say “it doesn’t matter”–so I think you need to decide which one is your position.

“I think that disputing ‘very fine people on both sides’ cuts both ways.”

This is a straightforward error. The presence or absence of objectionable people among the counter-protesters, however ‘objectionable’ is defined, can’t have any effect on whether Trump praised neo-Nazis or not.

You just moved the goalposts. You’re just admitting that Trump was referring to non-Nazis as “very fine people.” Whether there were a significant number of non-Nazis present or not, the fact that he’s specifically disavowing “neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally” is pretty poor evidence that he’s racist, isn’t it? (Although I can’t find anyone who actually says how many of whom were there — most reporting seems to simply assume that neo-Nazis constituted the majority of one side. without backing it up.)

However, there were also members of Democratic Socialists of America, the Workers World Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party (which openly advocates for overthrow of the United States), the “Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating Council” (whoever they are),and Antifa on the counter-protester side, some of whom came armed and looking for trouble. I think that disputing “very fine people on both sides” cuts both ways.

You seem to believe that Trump’s claim–that the ‘Unite the Right’ rally had a significant number of attendees who were not neo-Nazis–is correct.

Why do you believe that Trump’s claim is correct, and every other commentator on the rally is wrong?