Many people who supported Hillary Clinton have extended a hand to Donald Trump and hope that he will attempt to unite the country. I am not one of those people. Instead, I plan to fight Trump from day one. For those planning to give him a chance, let me submit that he just blew that chance.
It’s being reported that Trump has hired Steve Bannon as chief strategist and senior advisor. He’ll be in the White House closely directing policy and communications.
Bannon is a white supremacist domestic abuser and his hiring in such an important role is as clear a sign as we need that Trump intends to follow through on every despicable campaign promise, harness the forces of racism and xenophobia, and engage in every dark conspiracy theory he peddled in.
Trump also hired Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff. That’s fine, but who cares.
So, chances over. Full-on fighting on all fronts can begin.
…given what seemed to be a strained relationship between the two, but better than the Breitbart guy getting CoS. Neither of them meets the Bartlet criteria, though. (I’ll just let that one sit and see who understands the reference!)
I hadn’t heard anything like that.
But Breitbart is an immoral enterprise, and running that alone should disquality him.
The white supremacist?
or the domestic abuse?
n/t
And from an Anti-Trump Republican:
But isn’t that her opinion, not actual evidence?
Since I posted this I’ve seen his ex-wife quoted.
Again, I don’t like the guy … but that’s a hell of a label to apply if we’re not sure.
What do you mean by evidence?
Do you need a criminal conviction?
“white supremacist domestic abuser” is not a phrase I use lightly.
So I don’t know — multiple accusations would help. His wife said he was anti-semitic; did she say he was abusive as well? Has anyone else said it?
There is no question that under his control (he is, after all, the CEO) breitbart.com has been the mouthpiece of the alt-right.
If not his ex-wife, how about an editor who worked for him:
Do we really have to seriously discuss whether or not the new wave of German neo-Nazi groups are anti-Semitic? Really? We’re talking about a crowd that loves vdare, American Renaissance, and Richard Spencer.
The latter proudly proclaims on it’s front page (emphasis mine):
Do you seriously challenge whether this is a white supremacist site? How explicit does their bigotry have to be?
Just how far into this cess-pool does America have to jump before you agree that it smells like feces?
…as blood-boiling as it may be, just reading the Breitbart site for oneself would provide ample evidence.
Is Roger Ailes responsible for everything on Fox? Everything?
Your questions are all unanswerable; I’m asking specifically about the label as applied to Steve Bannon. I don’t think we know. Breitbart is horrific and immoral, and that alone should be disqualifying. But I’m wary (as others are) of a “Cry wolf” effect. I know you are not, and that’s fine — but please don’t jump all over every question I raise as if I’m an apologist.
Fox News has been egregiously deceptive and partisan since its inception. It has also been sexist for the same period.
I certainly do hold Mr. Ailes responsible for that, yes. That is what “editorial control” means. That phrase — “editorial control” — is a specific term with very real legal and commercial consequences.
It also should have political consequences.
I asked the following questions:
1. Do we really have to seriously discuss whether or not the new wave of German neo-Nazi groups are anti-Semitic?
2. Do you seriously challenge whether [Richard Spencer’s site] is a white supremacist site?
3. How explicit does their bigotry have to be (in order for someone to say “yes” to question 2)?
4. Just how far into this cess-pool does America have to jump before you agree that it smells like feces?
Which of those four questions is “unanswerable”?
I ask because to me their answers are so blindingly obvious that I view them as rhetorical, rather than actual, questions.
To use your favorite phrase, you’re missing the point.
I don’t care about your rhetorical questions, and you left out the first one, about the alt right. It’s an undefinable term. I AM OK with people disagreeing with me about politics. Without endorsing these people or anything they say, I will defend their right to say it.
What I do care about is this country, and the Democratic Party’s role in it. Steve Bannon (apparently) will have a large role in what the President does for a while. So I ask you — rhetorically — whether it’s wise to label him a “domestic abuser” when we don’t know?
When he really starts doing things, I would like to have some credibility and not be dismissed as rumor mongering. Am I overthinking this and being overcautious? Probably — but, to my mind, it’s a better quest than your search for moral high ground. There will be plenty of moral high ground to stand on later.
Trump is like a foreign exchange student preparing a birthday party. He knows ten people, and wants ten people there, so he invites everyone he knows whether it makes any sense.
I read he’s thinking Vince McMahon for Commerce. Another couple days it’ll probably be his limo driver for Transportation.
But same thing…
Neither one is remotely qualified to serve in that office. It’s like putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office — a nightmarish fantasy.
From journalist Sarah Kendzior:
I’m not familiar with this writer, but I just saw this on Twitter.