View Full Version : How do you feel about Bannon?
freshstart
11-14-16, 8:07pm
I am shocked that this is his first act, choosing this man. You can't say "give me a chance to unite the country" and then choose a white supremacist as your Chief of Staff. I sit here in utter shock and horror. There are so many examples but this one's pretty bad: "Under his leadership, Breitbart News ran this headline following the massacre of nine church-goers at an African American church in Charleston: ‘Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage.’ "
Does anyone see this in a positive light in any way?
I'm disgusted with my government.
Under fascism 101, leadership and the masses need someone to blame when all these promises of a more prosperous life don't pan out for most. Since the leadership doesn't want to be blamed, they need someone else to take the blame - so they are bringing in an expert. And the fixes suggested will likely be more draconian steps against those to blame.
Teacher Terry
11-14-16, 8:26pm
Horrible news.
freshstart
11-14-16, 8:26pm
I think I was wrong, he's chief strategist, not chief of staff
Teacher Terry
11-14-16, 8:26pm
I fear that we will have lots of riots like in the 60's.
freshstart
11-14-16, 8:26pm
I'm disgusted with my government.
I'm scared of our government
I fear that we will have lots of riots like in the 60's.We've been having regular riots for the last couple of years and as recently as yesterday. Do you think they'll increase?
Never really heard of him before. What are his white supremacist credentials?
Teacher Terry
11-14-16, 8:42pm
Yes I do. Glad I don't live in a big city.
Never really heard of him before. What are his white supremacist credentials?
He ran Breitbart.com. Apparently, nuff said!
Yes I do. Glad I don't live in a big city.
Oh I don't know, I think the rioters protesting Trump's election, the Electoral College and white privilege will eventually get cold and go home.
He ran Breitbart.com. Apparently, nuff said!
Well heck, that's like being Grand Dragon of the KKK!
freshstart
11-14-16, 9:46pm
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/14/1598978/-Sen-Jeff-Merkley-D-OR-Press-Release-on-Steve-Bannon?detail=facebook
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/14/1598951/-Trump-s-senior-White-House-advisor-says-in-radio-interview-that-liberal-women-are-a-bunch-of-dykes?detail=facebook
granted the daily kos is the opposite of Breitbart
I have a lot of respect for Senator Merkley.
And none for Bannon, as one of those "dykes" he's characterizing.
From what I've read, he's never been popular in conservative circles. Regarded as a bomb-thrower of sorts.
Its a shame (for a lot of reasons) that Phillip Seymour Hoffman passed, as he could so easily play Bannon in the inevitable movie.
iris lilies
11-15-16, 10:33am
Its a shame (for a lot of reasons) that Phillip Seymour Hoffman passed, as he could so easily play Bannon in the inevitable movie.
Oh yeah, kind of chubby and disheveled. PSH did that well, R.I.P guy.
Along with Senator Merkley, Oregon's senior senator, Ron Wyden, weighed In:
Steve Bannon ran a website that trafficked in anti-Semitism and boasted of being the voice of white nationalists. That’s a fact. There’s no spinning that.
It’s outrageous the first announcement from the Trump administration is to announce the chief strategist will be a man who not only tolerated hate in every form, but actively courted it and fomented it.
I’m the son of German-Jewish immigrants. My family left Nazi Germany and came to America. But it’s not just me saying that Bannon is an unacceptable choice. Reasonable people on the left and the right are just speechless that the president-elect is choosing to invite someone with this kind of record into the White House.
The fact that Mr. Trump’s allies are dismissing anti-Semitism, misogyny and white nationalism so lightly demonstrates a shocking lack of respect for history and starts this administration off on a stunningly wrong foot.
Naturally, I agree.
freshstart
11-15-16, 3:20pm
me, too. It's like he's saying out of one side of his mouth he will unite this country and out of the other he's doing everything to divide it. and then the right doesn't understand the protesting
iris lilies
11-15-16, 7:07pm
me, too. It's like he's saying out of one side of his mouth he will unite this country and out of the other he's doing everything to divide it. and then the right doesn't understand the protesting
The "uniting the country" stuff is bullshit we hear from every newly elected President b cause that is what they are supposed to say.
freshstart
11-15-16, 8:40pm
But when Obama said it, he didn't appoint Louis Farrakhan the next day
I have a good friend who is a conservative rabbi.
He offered me up these perspectives today on the "anti-Semite" accusations:
http://www.jta.org/2016/11/15/news-opinion/opinion/bannon-and-breitbart-friends-of-israel-not-anti-semites
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/11/15/alan-dershowitz-steve-bannon-smears-not-legitimate-call-somebody-anti-semite-disagree-policies/
iris lilies
11-15-16, 9:44pm
I have a good friend who is a conservative rabbi.
He offered me up these perspectives today on the "anti-Semite" accusations:
http://www.jta.org/2016/11/15/news-opinion/opinion/bannon-and-breitbart-friends-of-israel-not-anti-semites
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/11/15/alan-dershowitz-steve-bannon-smears-not-legitimate-call-somebody-anti-semite-disagree-policies/
Ah, a well reasoned defense by a Jew of Bannon's anti- semitism. How can that POSSIBLY compete against the 2 second sound bite of Bannon's ex wife? Haha. No one will read your article, everyone ne will accept the media's sound bite.
I am so completely sick and tired of "sound bite of the day" from the mainstream media telling us what evil is out there. Yesterday it was Bannon and "news " that Trump is too stupid to know that he has to hire White House staff.
They need to STf up. I am bored with their hysteria. I predict ratings slide in their future.
Ultralight
11-15-16, 9:48pm
So, here is the thing. I have noticed my fellow leftists just throw out accusations like so and so "is a white supremacist" or so and so is a "white nationalist" or so and so is a "racist."
And I say: "I am not defending so and so, but when you make that kind of an accusation that can destroy someone's character, you better provide proof. So gimme some!"
They don't like that.
And I even ask: "Can someone be a nationalist but not a white nationalist?"
They really don't like that.
So, here is the thing. I have noticed my fellow leftists just throw out accusations like so and so "is a white supremacist" or so and so is a "white nationalist" or so and so is a "racist."
These are unanswerable charges these days. You can throw these sorts of things out at someone, they'll stick, there's no response, you are tarred, it sticks around in search engines forever, click-bait aggregating sites slap cool photos of dead kittens to it, and that's that.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Ultralight
11-15-16, 10:00pm
A "friend" of mine said I was a sexist because I did not vote for Hillary.
I was appalled. Appalled!
A "friend" of mine said I was a sexist because I did not vote for Hillary.
I was appalled. Appalled!
Dude, you should have been here 8 years ago and admit not voting for Obama. Good Times!
Dude, you should have been here 8 years ago and admit not voting for Obama. Good Times!
Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you!
http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsb5bomPUB1r185nfo1_1280.jpg
iris lilies
11-15-16, 10:22pm
Dude, you should have been here 8 years ago and admit not voting for Obama. Good Times!
So much tight assery. So much dismissive sniffing of the "low information voter" , so much self congratulatory superiority. Just so much.
That, and oh yeah, kicking Alan off the site.
Ultralight
11-16-16, 8:33am
Dude, you should have been here 8 years ago and admit not voting for Obama. Good Times!
Did you really get kicked off the forum?
Also: I told my friend I voted for Jill Stein. And I chit you not, she said: "You did that because you knew she would lose and then you could claim you are not a sexist." I F-ing LOLed at that.
Did you really get kicked off the forum?
Yes, more than once. But, as Mr Aesop told us long ago, "slow and steady wins the race." ;)
So, here is the thing. I have noticed my fellow leftists just throw out accusations like so and so "is a white supremacist" or so and so is a "white nationalist" or so and so is a "racist."
And I say: "I am not defending so and so, but when you make that kind of an accusation that can destroy someone's character, you better provide proof. So gimme some!"
They don't like that.
And I even ask: "Can someone be a nationalist but not a white nationalist?"
They really don't like that.
We seem to be in the extended version of the "two minutes of hate" losing sides often indulge in.
I think at least part of the Trump victory is that charges of racism, etc. have been flung around so promiscuously that they are starting to lose their power to shame.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442210/racism-elected-donald-trump-according-people-who-make-everything-about-race
catherine
11-16-16, 9:56am
Here's an opinion piece on Bannon from the WSJ today. Key message is that it will be Trump's responsibility to keep Bannon's extreme political views in check. I wonder if that's like the wolf guarding the henhouse. Personally, I'm not comfortable with him as chief strategist. I think he could be a tinder box.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-steve-bannon-1479254631?cx_campaign=poptart&mod=cx_poptart#cxrecs_s
JaneV2.0
11-16-16, 11:56am
We seem to be in the extended version of the "two minutes of hate" losing sides often indulge in.
I think at least part of the Trump victory is that charges of racism, etc. have been flung around so promiscuously that they are starting to lose their power to shame.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442210/racism-elected-donald-trump-according-people-who-make-everything-about-race
Heaven forfend that we protest this takeover by right-wing racist extremists. We should just sit quietly and watch our democracy be dismantled piece by piece. I've lived through countless elections. I've been with the winning side four times. I've grumbled and snarked among my friends, but I did't take my anger out on strangers. I watched in horror as Bush 2 set the Middle East alight, a fire that still smolders today, and his cronies defended torture. I wrote letters to my representatives in Congress. But this is different. The country elected an unfit megalomaniac with Nazi inclinations, and he's going to have free rein. I can't understand those of you who are defending him or his henchmen. Particularly this one.
Wasn't I just saying "Everything will be all right?" Now I need to be talked down from the ledge.
Heaven forfend that we protest this takeover by right-wing racist extremists. We should just sit quietly and watch our democracy be dismantled piece by piece. I've lived through countless elections. I've been with the winning side four times. I've grumbled and snarked among my friends, but I did't take my anger out on strangers. I watched in horror as Bush 2 set the Middle East alight, a fire that still smolders today, and his cronies defended torture. I wrote letters to my representatives in Congress. But this is different. The country elected an unfit megalomaniac with Nazi inclinations, and he's going to have free rein. I can't understand those of you who are defending him or his henchmen. Particularly this one.
Wasn't I just saying "Everything will be all right?" Now I need to be talked down from the ledge.
As a great man once said, "There you go again". Nowhere in this thread do I see anyone "defending him or his henchmen".
I think there are many excellent reasons to object to Trump. My favorite magazine devoted an entire issue to them early on. Nor do I have any particular problem with peaceful protest. My objection is to reflexive, unthinking accusations of racism, etc. Either half the country is populated by irredeemable monsters (many of whom voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and 2012) or the current villain/victim narrative is too simple to account for Mr. Trump's rise to power.
Heaven forfend that we protest this takeover by right-wing racist extremists. We should just sit quietly and watch our democracy be dismantled piece by piece. I've lived through countless elections. I've been with the winning side four times. I've grumbled and snarked among my friends, but I did't take my anger out on strangers. I watched in horror as Bush 2 set the Middle East alight, a fire that still smolders today, and his cronies defended torture. I wrote letters to my representatives in Congress. But this is different. The country elected an unfit megalomaniac with Nazi inclinations, and he's going to have free rein. I can't understand those of you who are defending him or his henchmen. Particularly this one.
Wasn't I just saying "Everything will be all right?" Now I need to be talked down from the ledge.
Jane, please come back down from the ledge. I am in agreement with everything you say here and I have been very frightened and apprehensive the past few days, after my initial reaction of "Everything will be all right."
I don't know if it will or not but I agree that we need to work together to defend our nation. I liked what Kate McKlinnon said, "I'm not giving up and neither should you."
I'm hanging on to that right now.
JaneV2.0
11-16-16, 12:38pm
There's room up here on the ledge, Tybee.
LDAHL, I'm not talking about "half the country," here. I'm talking about one man who is proud of having steered Breitbart even farther to the right by pandering to the racist, sexist, gay-hating lunatic fringe.
Bannon's appointment has been cheered by leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party and other white nationalist groups.
Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.
From http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502165973/ex-breitbart-executive-brings-alt-right-ties-to-the-white-house
Teacher Terry
11-16-16, 3:24pm
Jane, I agree with you 100%. Peaceful protest is one of the few legal means people have to let the government know how they feel. The losers of a normal election usually are not in despair a week later like most people I know. So many people are afraid of what is to come. I don't understand why anyone would get thrown off the forum for having different view points. That is silly.
Did you really get kicked off the forum?
A lot of us did. There were flocks of chickens running loose. Very dangerous times.
Teacher Terry
11-16-16, 3:41pm
What is the point of having a forum is everyone has to have the same opinion in order to stay? Sounds really stupid to me. I am really surprised.
A lot of us did. There were flocks of chickens running loose. Very dangerous times.
Am I showing my age by laughing at that?
Teacher Terry
11-16-16, 3:54pm
I am 62 but am disgusted by the idea of throwing people off the forum because they don't agree with you.
Jane, I agree with you 100%. Peaceful protest is one of the few legal means people have to let the government know how they feel. The losers of a normal election usually are not in despair a week later like most people I know. So many people are afraid of what is to come. I don't understand why anyone would get thrown off the forum for having different view points. That is silly.
Most people you know are in despair?
Teacher Terry
11-16-16, 4:01pm
Yes most people I know are afraid of what will happen. They fear a return to the 60's. Also some work in human services and are worried for their clients. This has never happened before.
There's this comforting piece from the National Reviewhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/442189/steve-bannon-trump-administration-alt-right-breitbart-chief-strategist
Principled conservatives, especially those in leadership positions, have a political and moral duty to condemn, and to work to eradicate, the animus that is the alt-right’s raison d’être, and to uphold the pillars of the American project. That project is more than metaphysical abstractions; but it is also not a simple matter of blut und boden. No, Steve Bannon is not Josef Goebbels. But he has provided a forum for people who spend their days photoshopping pictures of conservatives into ovens. To conservative and liberal alike, that he has the ear of the next president of the United States (a man of no particular convictions, and loyal to no particular principles) should be a source of grave concern — and an occasion for common cause in the crucial task of the years to come: vigilance. — Ian Tuttle is the Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at the National Review*
The article also contains this sentence, which baffles me, in context or without: It is not “racist” to want to strengthen the bonds uniting citizens to their country.
iris lilies
11-16-16, 4:10pm
Yes most people I know are afraid of what will happen. They fear a return to the 60's. Also some work in human services and are worried for their clients. This has never happened before.
There was no fear and loathing when GW was elected? Especially the second time?
oh, I think there was.
Regardless of who wons a Presidential election there is projection. Many will "awfulize" their thinking to their detriment. I cant stop that. As a voter of neither of the big two, obviously I was mentally and spiritually prepared for "my side" not to win.
iris lilies
11-16-16, 4:11pm
What is the point of having a forum is everyone has to have the same opinion in order to stay? Sounds really stupid to me. I am really surprised.
To be fair, moderators always claimed it was never due to viewpoints held by those who were booted. In some cases they were right.
Teacher Terry
11-16-16, 4:17pm
IL: no people were not afraid of GW Bush. They didn't like him but no fear. If people can't understand how different this is then I can't explain it to them.
To be fair, moderators always claimed it was never due to viewpoints held by those who were booted. In some cases they were right.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2c/24/80/2c2480ef917529353f1a7bad4945032a.jpg
ApatheticNoMore
11-16-16, 4:21pm
There was no fear and loathing when GW was elected? Especially the second time?
oh, I think there was.
in fact if I didn't have fear and loathing (or at any rate was appalled at the election results) then I'd be ashamed to admit I didn't. The Iraq war in actual in reality killed a million people (that's the Iraqi total alone). Trump is mostly what people think he might do. I don't deny he might be bad, in some ways this is nearly guaranteed (environmental issues), in others more speculative. But with Bushes second election (not his first) we knew exactly not what he might do but what he DID do.
IL: no people were not afraid of GW Bush. They didn't like him but no fear. If people can't understand how different this is then I can't explain it to them
is fear worse than 1 million dead Iraqis? Actually, I don't think you can explain this to me. Ok I get it on an emotional level, fear might be personal fear for oneself or people immediately around one, and not about a bunch of people in another country. We are always more focused on that. But on another level no I don't think it can be explained (this relative indifference to such things as the deliberate and pointless murder of a million Iraqis etc.).
There was no fear and loathing when GW was elected? Especially the second time?
oh, I think there was.
Regardless of who wons a Presidential election there is projection. Many will "awfulize" their thinking to their detriment. I cant stop that. As a voter of neither of the big two, obviously I was mentally and spiritually prepared for "my side" not to win.
I didn't fear Bush. Maybe I should have, but thankfully I lived through his reign. Many soldiers and civilians abroad didn't. As Teacher Terry said, this is different.
Teacher Terry
11-16-16, 6:20pm
I also think Bush's wars were terrible and unnecessary.
freshstart
11-16-16, 8:49pm
IL: no people were not afraid of GW Bush. They didn't like him but no fear. If people can't understand how different this is then I can't explain it to them.
I agree with you
A lot of us did. There were flocks of chickens running loose. Very dangerous times.Yes, the pecking order was sometimes brutal.
Yes, the pecking order was sometimes brutal.
ell oh ell
Heaven forfend that we protest this takeover by right-wing racist extremists. We should just sit quietly and watch our democracy be dismantled piece by piece. I've lived through countless elections. I've been with the winning side four times. I've grumbled and snarked among my friends, but I did't take my anger out on strangers. I watched in horror as Bush 2 set the Middle East alight, a fire that still smolders today, and his cronies defended torture. I wrote letters to my representatives in Congress. But this is different. The country elected an unfit megalomaniac with Nazi inclinations, and he's going to have free rein. I can't understand those of you who are defending him or his henchmen. Particularly this one.
Wasn't I just saying "Everything will be all right?" Now I need to be talked down from the ledge.
I'm with you, Jane! It's all pretty damned frightening. This IS different......no matter how anyone tries to spin it.
I'm with you, Jane! It's all pretty damned frightening. This IS different......no matter how anyone tries to spin it.
I saw a film ("Keep Quiet") yesterday that centered around Jobbik (Movement for a Better Hungary, or the fascist party depending on your views). Scary stuff. A lot of echoes between what they were saying earlier on and what a lot of people are saying here now.
Teacher Terry
11-17-16, 1:58pm
My DIL is from Poland and since they broke away from Russia they have been much more democratic. Well now they have a President that has been changing all that. Even the mayor of Warsaw is speaking out against him and now the Polish people are afraid.
Interesting how people are saying that because we are a democracy, we shouldn't rise up against a soon-to-be-democratically-elected-president who, in my opinion, borders on being insane. It's quite strange to hear Obama and Clinton, etc. saying we should accept him, since he was democratically elected. I suppose they'd get in real trouble for saying "This guy is dangerous and we should all be very afraid." But at what point do we find a leader so objectionable that we have to be "politically incorrect" and demand/fight for a more reasonable leader? Yes, I suppose we should give him a chance, and find out who is really is and what he really believes in (since that changes constantly). But so much damage could be done in the meantime. I'm hoping the Congress will come up with enough sense to not okay everything he wants to do........whatever that is. I am having real problems even thinking all this is happening.
Interesting how people are saying that because we are a democracy, we shouldn't rise up against a soon-to-be-democratically-elected-president ...
I guess I'm not willing to go to war and turn this place into Sarejevo over some Facebook posts and tweets.
There are lines not to be crossed. If the administration crosses them, well... Now, of course, each person has a different line, another problem with democracy.
So I'll make it simple - what will you do if they start registering Muslims? I know what my answers are.
http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R97390_Deutschland_Mann_mit_Judenstern.jpg
freshstart
11-17-16, 4:40pm
CathyA, I'm with you.
my DD has many Muslim friends, their parents are afraid of internment camps and I don't think that is too far off the mark in worrying about being unwelcome in a country. I know I would take a family in.
Kelly did a good interview about this with the Trump camp, well worth watching:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3945768/Trump-PAC-spokesman-praises-Muslim-registry-cites-Japanese-internment-camps-precedent.html
I think all Americans need to familiarize themselves with how the Danes protected their fellow Danish Jews in WWII:
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=1000520
I think all Americans need to familiarize themselves with how the Danes protected their fellow Danish Jews in WWII:
And it's never a bad time to reread Solzhenitsyn:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"
ApatheticNoMore
11-17-16, 5:50pm
well if one thinks that Trump is a likely dictator then logically one would have some sympathy with protestors now, if one is considering ever more extreme stuff. It just follows.
Now the protestors are ambiguous, the thing is all protest is somewhat ambiguous and that's just being an adult to recognize it, but it's true these protestors don't have any actual demands as far as I can tell (rid of the electoral college is not even the first constitutional amendment I'd like to see - money out of politics first).
But if one believes all that is likely one can see the need to join in some sort of protest pre-emptively right? If one engages in all that fear mongering one can see why people are afraid and protest right? Too ambiguous a protest by far? Perhaps if one thinks it sends the message Hillary is good. The existing system may not be a crazed strongman (not yet anyway) but it is an corporate boot stepping on the human face forever, that's the bleakness of why people didn't elect the status quo perhaps.
Ultralight
11-17-16, 5:54pm
Internment camps? Registries? Up with that I WILL NOT put!
CathyA, I'm with you.
my DD has many Muslim friends, their parents are afraid of internment camps and I don't think that is too far off the mark in worrying about being unwelcome in a country. I know I would take a family in.
Hi freshstart........I felt that I should clarify my feelings. I'm not really democrat or republican. I am who I am and I have various feelings that don't fit into one label. First, I have to say that I really believe we're finally seeing the result of everyone being expected to be the same. We are not the same. I believe our instincts lead us to being tribal and to deny that is really hard work.
But the U.S. is based on ignoring/overcoming/rising above those instincts/natural tenancies. I guess it's a fair way to try to keep from having total chaos. But it's not working now. Various ethnic/religion people come here for all the freedoms and the possibilities, but then they don't want to assimilate and they demand to live out their own cultures/beliefs......and this begins to cause problems. What makes it all harder is that (in my opinion) there seem to be mostly 2 different types of brains here.........democrats and republicans. I even wonder if they've evolved from 2 different primates.....i.e. the regular chimpanzee versus the bonobos. More and more I am seeing a "make love, not war" and "accept everyone no matter what" belief coming from the democrats/liberals versus a "It's him or me", "An eye for an eye", "tribal" etc. belief from the republicans. So.......what we have is a huge chasm between these 2 types of people, coupled with a very poor plan for who gets into our country.
Yes, the original U.S. plan was to accept the poor, the unfortunate huddled masses, etc. But it's a different world now. Totally different. And it's not that "I got mine, and now I don't want anyone else to get it."........it's a matter of what we have become now.......overpopulated, over-consuming, destroying the environment, non-assimilating, etc., etc., etc. We really don't truly deal with any of the issues. We're sort of trapped in the past's hopes for this nation.
I'm rambling. I do have a terribly hard time expressing myself.
And as usual..........I don't have any remedies.......just trying to explain why we're at this point. And I'm not sure there is a solution.
But freshstart........back to the immigration issues.........I do believe there are times when we might upset some people, in trying to make the majority safer. We don't need to have a knee-jerk reaction and deport everyone of a certain nationality........but I do think we need to figure out a more humane way of dealing with this. Yes, some people's lives might get turned upside down.......but we have to think of the good of the whole. And what makes thinks even more challenging today is the internet and the fact that radical islam can look very good to some unhappy muslims here. Yes, we have a problem with young white men with guns, shooting up lots of people......and we can't even figure out what to do about that, because no one wants to give up their gun rights, laws can't seem to be followed, etc.
I'm seeing "liberals" not wanting anything bad to happen to anyone.........and this is just naive. This country has become a mess and we need some firmer rules and plans to keep us safe.
This goes for both sides.........we have to have some laws that control some issues, whether some people find it objectionable or not. Like gun control, for example. How can we keep allowing all these guns? Well, also.....how can we keep allowing so many more people of extremely different beliefs and culture to keep pouring into the country? There are soooooo many issues that have brought us to this point.
Like I've said before.........I suppose the "melting pot" might have been a noble idea to start with.........but I feel like we're now living was it's inevitable result.......nobody's happy, we're fighting, we're not safe, etc., etc.
And the pendulum.......when it swings far to one side, it then swings far to the other side too. I wish it would not swing so far!
catherine
11-18-16, 9:31am
Hi freshstart........I felt that I should clarify my feelings. I'm not really democrat or republican. I am who I am and I have various feelings that don't fit into one label. First, I have to say that I really believe we're finally seeing the result of everyone being expected to be the same. We are not the same. I believe our instincts lead us to being tribal and to deny that is really hard work.
But the U.S. is based on ignoring/overcoming/rising above those instincts/natural tenancies. I guess it's a fair way to try to keep from having total chaos.
1) I think you express yourself well, Cathy.
2) I was thinking about you when I read this today, from Jon Stewart (http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/media/jon-stewart-trump-cbs-this-morning/index.html):
"America is not natural. Natural is tribal. We're fighting against thousands of years of human behavior and history," Stewart said. "That's what's exceptional about America... this ain't easy. It's an incredible thing."
So Jon Stewart agrees with you--and also that it's not easy. There is always going to be a tension between the tribal mentality and the "Oneness" mentality. I would rather work with that tension than regress to accepting one extreme vs the other. But given a choice of the two paths, pandering to our fears and scapegoating is more likely to lead to the systematic dehumanization of vast swaths of innocent people. Not sure if that's the world I want to live in.
1) I think you express yourself well, Cathy.
2) I was thinking about you when I read this today, from Jon Stewart (http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/media/jon-stewart-trump-cbs-this-morning/index.html):
"America is not natural. Natural is tribal. We're fighting against thousands of years of human behavior and history," Stewart said. "That's what's exceptional about America... this ain't easy. It's an incredible thing."
So Jon Stewart agrees with you--and also that it's not easy. There is always going to be a tension between the tribal mentality and the "Oneness" mentality. I would rather work with that tension than regress to accepting one extreme vs the other. But given a choice of the two paths, pandering to our fears and scapegoating is more likely to lead to the systematic dehumanization of vast swaths of innocent people. Not sure if that's the world I want to live in.
That's funny, catherine......I saw an interview with Jon Stewart and heard him saying that I had to yell "YES!!!" I have been saying that for a long time, and no one seemed to think that way. So my feelings were sort of validated by Jon! Should I call him? :)
Yes, I understand what you are saying.........I suppose trying to rise above our natural instincts is better than going animalistic. It just seems to me that there must be a happy medium somewhere out there. But.......our nation is a nation of "me's" for a large part, and especially with Trump at the helm, it seems like it's being encouraged. And I DO think that there is so much more we could do to curb some of our problems than we're doing..........And that's because of the ME thing going on.
As far as immigrants.......why does it have to be all or none? It seems like liberals want everyone and conservatives want no one. Many people see any attempt at keeping immigration down as un-american. And other people see it as common sense.
I think we all live in different areas......some city, some town, some country. Some areas are impacted by certain problems and others aren't.........so we have to be careful to try to understand that our experiences are different.
I'm rambling again.........
Okay.......this might upset the liberals on here.....but part of me feels that the far right has gotten so large because the liberals are so accepting and soft. It's the conservatives who do the pushing and screaming and fighting. It's like the bonobos meeting the regular chimps. Who do you think will win? And now we have a regular chimp who will lead the country.
"And the meek shall inherit the earth"............it's a dream from the beginning..........because the meek have always lost. It's nature's way, right?
I'm not sure there is a solution catherine. And it scares me. But right now I gotta run errands...........but I'll be back later!
Okay.......this might upset the liberals on here.....but part of me feels that the far right has gotten so large because the liberals are so accepting and soft. It's the conservatives who do the pushing and screaming and fighting.
Over the past week, or so, I haven't seen conservatives rioting, burning and destroying property. I haven't seen mobs of self-righteous Republican students try to shout down speakers they can't ban outright. There's nothing out there like the exquisite, frenzied hatred you can see in the New York Times, for instance. We don't see anything like the incessant accusations of racism leveled by the Left.
Gentle liberal Eloi being brutalized by conservative Morlocks? I have difficulty buying that.
I am shocked that this is his first act, choosing this man. You can't say "give me a chance to unite the country" and then choose a white supremacist as your Chief of Staff. I sit here in utter shock and horror. There are so many examples but this one's pretty bad: "Under his leadership, Breitbart News ran this headline following the massacre of nine church-goers at an African American church in Charleston: ‘Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage.’ "
Does anyone see this in a positive light in any way?
I do not see it in a positive light other than thinking maybe Trump will have someone to blame everything on............seriously, if I were Trump, I would be making my term easier, not harder because of choosing inappropriate people as staff.
Bannon should be in good company with Jeff Sessions as attorney general. By the reports, he has been plagued by a history of race bias allegations and even seems to oppose some "legal" immigration.
I think right now the protests are just venting frustration and really don't have any clear purpose other than to show opposition to Trumpism. If he can actually pull off some of his alt-right radical policy, I don't think the liberal left is going to sit by quietly. I could see the modern equivalent activists of the Black Panthers and the anti-war demonstrators.
Over the past week, or so, I haven't seen conservatives rioting, burning and destroying property. I haven't seen mobs of self-righteous Republican students try to shout down speakers they can't ban outright. There's nothing out there like the exquisite, frenzied hatred you can see in the New York Times, for instance. We don't see anything like the incessant accusations of racism leveled by the Left.
Gentle liberal Eloi being brutalized by conservative Morlocks? I have difficulty buying that.
Maybe I'm confused with what you said LDAHL........but you don't see the conservatives rioting because they won! I'm sure Trump would have fired them up to riot if he had lost.......and he'd probably be demanding a recount and screaming all sorts of vile stuff, threatening to sue the government. And I do wonder when the peaceful protests recently are marred with violence/destruction, if it isn't either someone who voted for Trump trying to make them look bad, or if it's just the "usual" malcontents taking advantage of a situation in which they can cause mayhem and release whatever frustration they have, and it may not have anything to do with the election.
Maybe I'm confused with what you said LDAHL........but you don't see the conservatives rioting because they won!
Oh come on, conservatives don't riot. Even the Tea Partiers cleaned up after themselves after rallies.
"Good people don’t smoke marijuana.” - Senator Jeff Sessions, President-Elect Trump's nominee for Attorney General.
Sigh. It's going to be a long, long four years.
freshstart
11-18-16, 1:46pm
it better not be 8 yrs, j/s
In Portland, protesters started a crowd-funding page to raise money to help pay for the damage that "anarchist" trouble-makers caused (I'm sure they weren't real anarchists...) Protest and civil disobedience are messy, but vital.
Maybe I'm confused with what you said LDAHL........but you don't see the conservatives rioting because they won! I'm sure Trump would have fired them up to riot if he had lost.......and he'd probably be demanding a recount and screaming all sorts of vile stuff, threatening to sue the government. And I do wonder when the peaceful protests recently are marred with violence/destruction, if it isn't either someone who voted for Trump trying to make them look bad, or if it's just the "usual" malcontents taking advantage of a situation in which they can cause mayhem and release whatever frustration they have, and it may not have anything to do with the election.
I'm just comparing the charred and broken physical evidence of what happened in reality to your imagining what the Trumpsters would have done. The Trump provocateur theory is a nice touch. In the event there were a real-world Trump riot, would you be so quick to dismiss the mayhem as the work of "the usual malcontents"? Or would be hearing all about rampaging brownshirts?
I think the actions and the rhetoric of the past several days belie your claim that the Left is just too sweet and kind to confront the barbarism of their opposition.
"Good people don’t smoke marijuana.” - Senator Jeff Sessions, President-Elect Trump's nominee for Attorney General.
Sigh. It's going to be a long, long four years.
The Sessions appointment took me aback. I think Rudy would have been a much better fit for AG.
"Good people don’t smoke marijuana.” - Senator Jeff Sessions, President-Elect Trump's nominee for Attorney General.
By my liberal media source, he once said he was OK with KKK members until he learned some smoked pot. He claimed it as a joke. The source (Mother Jones) claimed he was the KKK choice for president. I think Trump is going to have a rough time with the mainstream media after his comments during the campaign. I haven't heard if the conservative talk show hosts are for or against his policies, but suspect he at least has some friends there.
Hidden among all his more attention getting rhetoric he has proposed term limits for the house and senate. That actually seems like it might be a good thing as far as I can tell. It might result in a little house cleaning of the old codgers on both sides of the fence who have gotten along in the good old boy system for ages.
ApatheticNoMore
11-18-16, 3:21pm
One positive about Sessions is he has been consistently against the TPP (and he read it when very few were legally able to), so Trump might actually intend to be consistent with his promises on the trade agreements by appointing him. Well that may be the only positive about Sessions ... :laff:
Protest and civil disobedience are messy, but vital.
I think wait and see on protest per Roger is perfectly reasonable. Just if one really was convinced Trump was Hitler one wouldn't have any problem not waiting and seeing, nor would they condemn damage (unless it was counterproductive as strategy which of course many think it is). The thing is it's impossible to know who actually causes the damage, anything could be infiltrators, etc. as there is a long history of that. Sometimes it's also hard to know who funds the protest movement itself :|(
Yea messy, ambiguous, the only question to ask then of any protest is: is this pushing in a direction I believe is right (I mean before deciding to join or at least praise a protest).
By my liberal media source, he once said he was OK with KKK members until he learned some smoked pot. He claimed it as a joke. The source (Mother Jones) claimed he was the KKK choice for president. I think Trump is going to have a rough time with the mainstream media after his comments during the campaign. I haven't heard if the conservative talk show hosts are for or against his policies, but suspect he at least has some friends there.
Hidden among all his more attention getting rhetoric he has proposed term limits for the house and senate. That actually seems like it might be a good thing as far as I can tell. It might result in a little house cleaning of the old codgers on both sides of the fence who have gotten along in the good old boy system for ages.
If the focus here--in all these appointments--were just the TPP, and not a shared hatred for anyone who wasn't white and male, I would be considerably less concerned.
catherine
11-18-16, 5:10pm
The Sessions appointment took me aback. I think Rudy would have been a much better fit for AG.
Me too. I actually think Giuliani did a great job in NY--fellow liberals may disagree, but they're not the ones that had to walk down 42nd Street to Port Authority after dark every night a few decades ago.
I think the actions and the rhetoric of the past several days belie your claim that the Left is just too sweet and kind to confront the barbarism of their opposition.
I haven't seen the Democrats this mad since the Republicans took their slaves away.
Hidden among all his more attention getting rhetoric he has proposed term limits for the house and senate. That actually seems like it might be a good thing as far as I can tell. It might result in a little house cleaning of the old codgers on both sides of the fence who have gotten along in the good old boy system for ages.
The problem that I see with putting term limits in place as things stand now is that it would make the lobbyists even stronger. For a couple of reasons. First, there'd be a lot more ex-reps and ex-senators needing jobs. And second, until we figure out how to term-limit the lobbyists, they'd have a distinct advantage against a constant stream of newby congresspeople.
iris lilies
11-18-16, 10:52pm
I haven't seen the Democrats this mad since the Republicans took their slaves away.
:devil:
iris lilies
11-18-16, 10:53pm
The problem that I see with putting term limits in place as things stand now is that it would make the lobbyists even stronger. For a couple of reasons. First, there'd be a lot more ex-reps and ex-senators needing jobs. And second, until we figure out how to term-limit the lobbyists, they'd have a distinct advantage against a constant stream of newby congresspeople.
And this supposedly what's happenng in our statehouse, increasing the power of lobbyists due to short term legislators.
JaneV2.0
11-18-16, 11:22pm
I haven't seen the Democrats this mad since the Republicans took their slaves away.
I saw that line on FB today.
I think the left in general is too soft--to the point of looking like patsies. We can either take the fight to them or stand on rhe sidelines shouting "no fair!"
They aren't going to play fair; their only goal is gaining power by any means possible and crushing the opposition. We need to grow a collective spine.
I saw that line on FB today.
I think the left in general is too soft--to the point of looking like patsies. We can either take to fight to them or stand on rhe sidelines shouting "no fair!"
They aren't going to play fair; their only goal is gaining power by any means possible and crushing the opposition. We need to grow a collective spine.
Maybe we should just flat out refuse to confirm any supreme court justices. There's precedent for that. Make some bold statement about "the popular vote was for Hillary so we can't in good faith consider confirming anyone that Trump nominates." And leave it at that until after gets impeached. THen shift it to "The people didn't vote for Pence for president so we can't in good faith consider confirming anyone that Pence nominates." And if anyone has a fit about it state "we're just taking our instructions from turtle face" (ok, maybe only think turtle face when saying McConnell.) After all the republicans thought permanent obstruction was a great idea right up until a day or two before the election. And since it worked for the republicans it can work for us too.
And leave it at that until 2020. And everyone freaking out about the supreme court can take a chill pill. They started with an even number of justices so they can have an even number of justices now.
The problem that I see with putting term limits in place as things stand now is that it would make the lobbyists even stronger. For a couple of reasons. First, there'd be a lot more ex-reps and ex-senators needing jobs. And second, until we figure out how to term-limit the lobbyists, they'd have a distinct advantage against a constant stream of newby congresspeople.
Well, if you can buy into Trumpism he says he is going to drain the swamp of the lobbyists. Problem solved? Not that I think it would work, but it's not absolutely worth condemning either. I think Trump will have enough on his plate to keep occupied for a long time before term limits comes up.
early morning
11-19-16, 9:43am
I haven't seen the Democrats this mad since the Republicans took their slaves away. Really? Frankly, Alan, I am disappointed. You are generally much more nuanced and entertaining in your pot-stirring. Of course, one could well argue that the Republican party platform of 1860 is quite close to the Democratic ideals of today - free slaves (rights and legal protections for other than white peeps), tariffs to protect their own (ok, that can go to both parties), huge spending on infrastructure - the transcontinental railroad, money for river and port improvements (the Donald says he's for rebuilding/improving infrastructure but legislation on this has been blocked by Repubs during the past few administrations), and free land for all!!
jp1 - I agree wholeheartedly. We should all forward your post to our elected Democratic representatives!
Maybe we should just flat out refuse to confirm any supreme court justices....
I don't think the dems are going to approve a few of his cabinet nominations or the Supreme Court without a fight. Hopefully there is a thread of control left in their minority numbers and at least they can slow some processes. The Stalinesc way he has treated some of his critics will probably carry some intimidation, especially among his own party.
Really? Frankly, Alan, I am disappointed. You are generally much more nuanced and entertaining in your pot-stirring.
Oh I don't know about pot-stirring, but perhaps that depends upon perspective. From mine, the nuance is that the political and social climate of the past several years has resulted in a level of Republican domination in all levels of government, state and federal, not seen since the Restoration. There's a reason for that, and I'm pretty sure today's Democrats are misinterpreting it since no ism's or phobe's are actually involved. An introduction to Mr Carnegie's work may be in order to fully understand.
Considering that the dems picked up seats in both the house and senate and their nominee got 1.4 million more votes then the other dude I'm not sure I'd be writing off our party just yet. And the republicans certainly aren't ascendant in my state. We now have a super-majority of dems in the state legislature, and had a choice between two democrats in the senate race because the top two vote getters in the open senate primary were both democrats.
Well, if you can buy into Trumpism he says he is going to drain the swamp of the lobbyists.
The only way trump will actually act on that promise is if he gets concerned that the lobbyists are going to somehow cut in on his and his kids' grift. Because in reality it's only about him. I give it maybe a year before the people protesting trump switches from democrats to the people who voted for him.
Along with Senator Merkley, Oregon's senior senator, Ron Wyden, weighed In:
Steve Bannon ran a website that trafficked in anti-Semitism and boasted of being the voice of white nationalists. That’s a fact. There’s no spinning that.
It’s outrageous the first announcement from the Trump administration is to announce the chief strategist will be a man who not only tolerated hate in every form, but actively courted it and fomented it.
I’m the son of German-Jewish immigrants. My family left Nazi Germany and came to America. But it’s not just me saying that Bannon is an unacceptable choice. Reasonable people on the left and the right are just speechless that the president-elect is choosing to invite someone with this kind of record into the White House.
The fact that Mr. Trump’s allies are dismissing anti-Semitism, misogyny and white nationalism so lightly demonstrates a shocking lack of respect for history and starts this administration off on a stunningly wrong foot.
Naturally, I agree.
So I guess this is part of the don't apologize to anyone approach, but given the recent dust up over the Holocaust memorial statement failing to mention Jews it doesn't look like they are going to go out of their way to prove anyone wrong on this any time soon.
And now Bannon is on the National Security Council (don't worry, they made room by kicking off the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
Over the last few days, I'm feeling very anti-Bannon who, as Yossarian points out, is now on the Natl Security Council,and is one of Trump's "inner circle," who decided to implement this abrupt decision to block all people from the 7 Muslim countries, a decision which has created chaos and was made without discussion with other key government officials. Much of this poorly-conceived action has now been deemed unconstitutional, and the Trump administration has declared they will ignore legal advice, and have fired the AG for stating she won't support an illegal, unconstitutional act Bannon is up front and center with the small group around Trump who decided to do this in the first place, and then barge on through, telling the Attorney General "you're fired", and stating Republicans should not speak their mind, but instead support Trump no matter what, and diplomats also should not disagree but just leave. I have to wonder how much influence Bannon has....looks like way too much
I fear that we will have lots of riots like in the 60's.
I'm not planning to take part in a riot but tomorrow I'm going to a Resist trump rally. First political movement I've ever attended. I feel like I HAVE to.
I'm not planning to take part in a riot but tomorrow I'm going to a Resist trump rally. First political movement I've ever attended. I feel like I HAVE to.
I suspect that "rioters," if any, are Republican paid provocateurs along with the usual garden-variety troublemakers. Dissent is a time-honored part of being a conscientious citizen--taking a stand for what you believe in.
I suspect that "rioters," if any, are Republican paid provocateurs
Seriously?
Seriously?I think that's projection.
We know that during the Tea Party's glory days liberals infiltrated organized events with offensive signs trying to paint the events as racist/homophobic/etc., and that liberal groups have been disrupting conservative gatherings ever since, but I've never seen or heard any evidence of the conservatives, libertarians or Republicans doing the same. That would be completely out of character in my opinion.
Seriously?
Seriously, but they probably don't pay much, being how they're fiscally conservative and all.
And of course Trump has a history of stiffing his contractors.
frugal-one
1-31-17, 1:34pm
I think that's projection.
We know that during the Tea Party's glory days liberals infiltrated organized events with offensive signs trying to paint the events as racist/homophobic/etc., and that liberal groups have been disrupting conservative gatherings ever since, but I've never seen or heard any evidence of the conservatives, libertarians or Republicans doing the same. That would be completely out of character in my opinion.
You have your head in the sand! Nor do you have any evidence of any party ...
You have your head in the sand!
Really? Give me an example please.
frugal-one
1-31-17, 2:11pm
Really? Give me an example please.
Believing that only one party is capable of disrupting gatherings. There is no evidence of such.
Believing that only one party is capable of disrupting gatherings. There is no evidence of such.
Actually, there's lots of evidence of one ideology disrupting events, can you give me an example of the other? I know that everyone is 'capable' of disruption, but not everyone cultivates those traits.
Teacher Terry
1-31-17, 3:15pm
It is really interesting that 5 female federal judges are blocking Trumps immigration order. I bet it pisses him off that they are woman:))
Really? Give me an example please.
The closest I can think of is the Brooks Brothers Riot of 2000, although that was largely media spin. It's fun to think about though.
Options traders rampaging down Broad Street, ties askew, throwing highball glasses and screaming obscenities like "All lives matter!". Mormon deacons burning Elizabeth Warren in effigy. Strict constructionists strictly constructing in the middle of Times Square. Hordes of duffers in plaid slacks bringing downtown Austin to it's knees in an unruly "putter parade". Makeshift McMansions erected in Zuccotti Park by accountants demanding the abolishment of the alternative minimum tax. Oh the humanity.
I think it's safe to say that people who didn't want Obama in the White House weren't always happy little peaceful citizens:
http://www.revelist.com/politics/america-responds-obama/5855/yes-this-is-the-ultimate-acceptance-of-a-presidentelect/1
I think that's projection.
We know that during the Tea Party's glory days liberals infiltrated organized events with offensive signs trying to paint the events as racist/homophobic/etc., and that liberal groups have been disrupting conservative gatherings ever since, but I've never seen or heard any evidence of the conservatives, libertarians or Republicans doing the same. That would be completely out of character in my opinion.
If you are thinking conservative infiltration to disrupt the liberals, Watergate is what first came to my mind. It was a while ago, but a pretty big one.
We know that during the Tea Party's glory days liberals infiltrated organized events with offensive signs trying to paint the events as racist/homophobic/etc., and that liberal groups have been disrupting conservative gatherings ever since, but I've never seen or heard any evidence of the conservatives, libertarians or Republicans doing the same. That would be completely out of character in my opinion.
There was a time when the conservatives had different disruptive issues.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1693&stc=1
I wish we knew more about him, given how powerful he has become. If he were to go on Charlie Rose, it would be must-see-TV.
From what I can tell, he wants to reverse the cultural and economic integration our country has seen over the past two or three generations. That seems to be the motivating force behind him......
There was a time when the conservatives had different disruptive issues.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1693&stc=1
Yeah--now they're just into gerrymandering, voter suppression, and having Fox News spread lies and propaganda for them.
I wonder how Fox News came to figure so prominently in the progressive pantheon of villainy? Along with the Brothers Koch, most profit-making endeavors or that benighted uncle who gets so masterfully rebutted at all those imagined Thanksgiving dinners.
Why, with all the other possibilities out there, has "Fox News talking points" become such a widely used incantation? Surely there are other monsters in the bestiary?
Surely there are other monsters in the bestiary?
I think there's only two, and most people eventually outgrow the bogeyman.
Heard today that Bannon has not even received security clearance, and yet, is allowed into the security conferences. How can this be????????
Heard today that Bannon has not even received security clearance, and yet, is allowed into the security conferences. How can this be????????
What is a "security clearance"? What is a "security clearance" good for? Who issues them? Who do those people report to?
Etc.
What is a "security clearance"? What is a "security clearance" good for? Who issues them? Who do those people report to?
Etc.
Anyone who deals with confidential information basically. All types of EXTENSIVE background checks are done. I would think someone who will be dealing with international security would HAVE to have this clearance!!!!! I had this done and even my neighbors were asked about me AND I was, obviously, not that high up the chain. This truly is a big deal IMO.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.