I know this has been explained to you many times, but it's weird to hear you make that same claim despite the entire process having been explained by Lee Atwater.
The whole point is to be vague when you know your targets will either understand what you mean or believe what you want them to believe, all the while maintaining the veneer of deniability. This allows people like you to say "he didn't say that", while he gets his message across.
This was a documented conservative strategy expressed to Reagan, the previous acolyte of the Heritage Foundation. Trump has followed in his footsteps, except going as far as to quote Hitler: "Poisoning the blood of our country."
You start out in 1954 by saying, "




, 




, 




." By 1968, you can't say "




" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this" is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "




, 




." Lee Atwater