Know your Enemy: Steve Bannon by Amy Goodman

Page 6 of 13 [ 207 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 13  Next

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

04 Feb 2017, 7:31 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Then pray tell, what is your position that I have so wrong?


adifferentname wrote:
1: You want me to defend a position that I have not espoused. Provide a quote of me justifying racism.
2: You implied I said Breitbart was "behaving like racists". Again, quote me doing so.
3: What percentage of Breitbart readers behave like racist trolls? What is the extent of the problem? Show evidence to support your answer.
4: Explain why you used hyperbole and rhetoric in a bid to misrepresent me instead of taking the time to concoct a reasonable argument.


This is an opportunity to engage in productive discourse, Bill. If you require a safety net, be assured that it would be impossible for you to disappoint me.


Then, please, answer the question. If I'm wrong, then simply enlighten me, instead of being overbearing, anal, vindictive, and showing signs of penis envy, as some in the past have done.
Seriously, if you want to have a productive discourse, instead of scoring points, then let's speak amiably.

I have no doubt in my mind that Milo himself is a reprehensible douchebag...

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/m ... -explained



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

04 Feb 2017, 8:35 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Then pray tell, what is your position that I have so wrong?


adifferentname wrote:
1: You want me to defend a position that I have not espoused. Provide a quote of me justifying racism.
2: You implied I said Breitbart was "behaving like racists". Again, quote me doing so.
3: What percentage of Breitbart readers behave like racist trolls? What is the extent of the problem? Show evidence to support your answer.
4: Explain why you used hyperbole and rhetoric in a bid to misrepresent me instead of taking the time to concoct a reasonable argument.


This is an opportunity to engage in productive discourse, Bill. If you require a safety net, be assured that it would be impossible for you to disappoint me.


Then, please, answer the question. If I'm wrong, then simply enlighten me, instead of being overbearing, anal, vindictive, and showing signs of penis envy, as some in the past have done.


I haven't wronged you though, and yet I get the same evasion, the same weaselly implications - I can think of no better way to describe insinuation posed as rhetorical questions, especially when preceded by:

Quote:
Are you serious?!?!?!


Yes, I'm serious. I'm also consistent, reasonable and fair (amongst many other flaws). And when others repeatedly demonstrate their unwillingness to be likewise - especially when they opt to become personal, attempt to psychoanalyse me or project their internal narrative in-between the lines of text I've written - I'm disinclined to consider them in complimentary terms.

Quote:
Seriously, if you want to have a productive discourse, instead of scoring points, then let's speak amiably.


The trouble is, Bill, I'm highly dubious that productive discourse is possible with you. You might consider answering that 4 point response I've made to be the entry fee to Club Reasonable. When someone repeatedly ignores your arguments in favour of implying you're Hitler, Satan, etc, refusing to further engage becomes the reasonable position.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

04 Feb 2017, 8:54 am

marshall wrote:
I have no doubt in my mind that Milo himself is a reprehensible douchebag...

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/m ... -explained


Solely because of a social media spat?



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

04 Feb 2017, 9:00 am

adifferentname wrote:
marshall wrote:
I have no doubt in my mind that Milo himself is a reprehensible douchebag...

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/m ... -explained


Solely because of a social media spat?

A pattern of behavior demonstrated in online behavior should impact people's view of a poster's character.

On to Bannon, if all of his remarks get distributed effectively in the Mideast, American soldiers will die as a direct consequence of having this man in the White House.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

04 Feb 2017, 10:41 am

Raptor wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
EzraS wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
The alt-right is about as punk rock as is trump.

Punk is about being antiestablishment.

You guy have DC, contradictary terms.


Trump actually did run a pretty punk rock campaign; DIY, anti-establishment, f*ck the man, loud and crass but effective, it's all there.


Prepare to be contradicted without hesitation.

Ever notice how sports fans are often unwilling to listen to an objective analysis of why their team lost, instead go with "the other team are cheating b******s, the ref is clearly colluding, the whole system is corrupt"?


LOL that's a very apt analogy.


Thanks. I was discussing football with a friend earlier and something she said struck a chord.

It's really telling that Raptor, who has been all but labelled a Nazi by some posters, was the one who recognised I was trying to be objective in my analysis of the Alt-Right in the "Our New President" thread. I think it would be fair to say that objective vs biased, rather than "left" vs "right", is the the primary factor in a large percentage of PPR spats, and that it's an "omnipartisan" issue.




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you actually read the things you write?


Objectivity (äbjekˈtivədē) noun
Do you know what it means, or does it have to be presented by a fellow liberal to be valid?
Just asking...



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You guys are are at your most amusing when you are the most sincere.


I am pretty sure real objectivity is impossible.

If you will remember, when I am presented with a valid point, I try to accept it and acknowledge it.

The current research shows that conservatives generally have a much more active amygdala than liberals.

The amygdala is the part of the brain responsible for fear.

And one thing that you and your compatriots have show me is that you are so afraid of being wrong, that you will adopt any line of reasoning to avoid it.

You and EzraS are a little better than the others, but it is still obvious.

Motivated reasoning is a continuation of the idea of cognitive dissonance. Other research studies have shown that conservative also use motivated reasoning to a greater extent than liberals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

The two things work hand in hand.

When I read what you guys write, it is hilarious. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I get to see the research results for myself.

I originally tried to engage with most of you in a meaningful manner, but that proved to be impossible because of the reasons above.

So now I just read and laugh.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

04 Feb 2017, 11:11 am

The whole laughing routine would work better at grating people's nerves(your obvious intention) if you weren't on the losing side, it comes off really desperate and sad otherwise. You'd really annoying if Hillary won and we were powerless to stop her extreme agenda but that didn't happen and instead it's you who is powerless. However funny you think we are, you can't even begin to understand the level of amusement and satisfaction Trump supporters have at defeating the most corrupt candidate in American political history in what wouldn't even be called a free and fair election in another country. Now there are some butthurt people advocating violence openly and being traitors to our country, there should be no mercy given to these criminals and terrorists. They are the enemy of America and freedom everywhere. Trump needs to crush the corrupt deep state which attempted to rig our democracy and now talk of overthrowing it, these people are nothing less than traitors and should be dealt with as such. How the opposition have conducted themselves since Trump's election has confirmed almost everything I ever thought about them, the extremists have crowded out any semblance of reasonability.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

04 Feb 2017, 11:21 am

Jacoby wrote:
The whole laughing routine would work better at grating people's nerves(your obvious intention) if you weren't on the losing side, it comes off really desperate and sad otherwise. You'd really annoying if Hillary won and we were powerless to stop her extreme agenda but that didn't happen and instead it's you who is powerless. However funny you think we are, you can't even begin to understand the level of amusement and satisfaction Trump supporters have at defeating the most corrupt candidate in American political history in what wouldn't even be called a free and fair election in another country. Now there are some butthurt people advocating violence openly and being traitors to our country, there should be no mercy given to these criminals and terrorists. They are the enemy of America and freedom everywhere. Trump needs to crush the corrupt deep state which attempted to rig our democracy and now talk of overthrowing it, these people are nothing less than traitors and should be dealt with as such. How the opposition have conducted themselves since Trump's election has confirmed almost everything I ever thought about them, the extremists have crowded out any semblance of reasonability.

That reads a lot like dehumanization of anyone who stands in Trump's way. Are people ready to justify Trump defeating your enemies by any means necessary on that basis?

I've seen a few comments like, I don't care anymore as long as my enemies are hurt by this. I tried to take them as regrettable lapses of decency in the heat of an argument. The more I see, though, the more I worry; I'd be stupid not to.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

04 Feb 2017, 11:25 am

feral botanist wrote:
Raptor wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
EzraS wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
The alt-right is about as punk rock as is trump.

Punk is about being antiestablishment.

You guy have DC, contradictary terms.


Trump actually did run a pretty punk rock campaign; DIY, anti-establishment, f*ck the man, loud and crass but effective, it's all there.


Prepare to be contradicted without hesitation.

Ever notice how sports fans are often unwilling to listen to an objective analysis of why their team lost, instead go with "the other team are cheating b******s, the ref is clearly colluding, the whole system is corrupt"?


LOL that's a very apt analogy.


Thanks. I was discussing football with a friend earlier and something she said struck a chord.

It's really telling that Raptor, who has been all but labelled a Nazi by some posters, was the one who recognised I was trying to be objective in my analysis of the Alt-Right in the "Our New President" thread. I think it would be fair to say that objective vs biased, rather than "left" vs "right", is the the primary factor in a large percentage of PPR spats, and that it's an "omnipartisan" issue.




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you actually read the things you write?


Objectivity (äbjekˈtivədē) noun
Do you know what it means, or does it have to be presented by a fellow liberal to be valid?
Just asking...



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You guys are are at your most amusing when you are the most sincere.


I am pretty sure real objectivity is impossible.

If you will remember, when I am presented with a valid point, I try to accept it and acknowledge it.

The current research shows that conservatives generally have a much more active amygdala than liberals.

The amygdala is the part of the brain responsible for fear.

And one thing that you and your compatriots have show me is that you are so afraid of being wrong, that you will adopt any line of reasoning to avoid it.

You and EzraS are a little better than the others, but it is still obvious.

Motivated reasoning is a continuation of the idea of cognitive dissonance. Other research studies have shown that conservative also use motivated reasoning to a greater extent than liberals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

The two things work hand in hand.

When I read what you guys write, it is hilarious. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I get to see the research results for myself.

I originally tried to engage with most of you in a meaningful manner, but that proved to be impossible because of the reasons above.

So now I just read and laugh.


You do realise that if you'd simply stated "I'm aware I'm a slave to my cognitive bias, yet incapable of recognising my chains." you could have saved yourself some time, right?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

04 Feb 2017, 11:41 am

jrjones9933 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The whole laughing routine would work better at grating people's nerves(your obvious intention) if you weren't on the losing side, it comes off really desperate and sad otherwise. You'd really annoying if Hillary won and we were powerless to stop her extreme agenda but that didn't happen and instead it's you who is powerless. However funny you think we are, you can't even begin to understand the level of amusement and satisfaction Trump supporters have at defeating the most corrupt candidate in American political history in what wouldn't even be called a free and fair election in another country. Now there are some butthurt people advocating violence openly and being traitors to our country, there should be no mercy given to these criminals and terrorists. They are the enemy of America and freedom everywhere. Trump needs to crush the corrupt deep state which attempted to rig our democracy and now talk of overthrowing it, these people are nothing less than traitors and should be dealt with as such. How the opposition have conducted themselves since Trump's election has confirmed almost everything I ever thought about them, the extremists have crowded out any semblance of reasonability.

That reads a lot like dehumanization of anyone who stands in Trump's way. Are people ready to justify Trump defeating your enemies by any means necessary on that basis?

I've seen a few comments like, I don't care anymore as long as my enemies are hurt by this. I tried to take them as regrettable lapses of decency in the heat of an argument. The more I see, though, the more I worry; I'd be stupid not to.


It should sound familiar to Obama supporters since they were quite apt accusing anyone of disagreed with them as being terrorists, traitors, and worst of all racists. Democrats have used the most extreme rhetoric imaginable against Trump so if they don't like the heat being put on them now then they should get out the kitchen, I don't see any reason to work with people who are violent and incapable of sharing power. People need to accept the fact that Trump is president now, you don't have the option of not cooperating with the legal democratic political process no matter how hard you stomp your feet and how long you hold your breath. I have spoilers for all of you, part of why I can call all this so accurately is because I've seen this exact same scenario play out in Wisconsin with the Democratic minority in the legislature with it's grandstanding & theatrics and it ends in their total defeat.

There is legitimate opposition and then there is what these anti-Trump people are doing, elections matter and attempts at intimidation on our democracy only strengthens my resolve to defeat these enemies of freedom.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

04 Feb 2017, 1:19 pm

feral botanist wrote:

The current research shows that conservatives generally have a much more active amygdala than liberals.

The amygdala is the part of the brain responsible for fear.

So it was conservatives that needed safe rooms with coloring books and puppies to assuage thier grief (i.e. unreasonable fear of impending doom) over thier candidate losing the elections in 2008 and 2012? Did conservative students hold a "cry in" at Cornell after Obama won in '08?
A cry in??? :lol: :lmao: :lmao:
I'd put a pistol to my head before I attend a cry in for anything.

The left has set themselves so far back in the aftermath of this election that it'll take them nearly forever to dig out.
Keep laughing and treating us to your superior intellect, though.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1021
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

04 Feb 2017, 2:13 pm

Steve Bannon is a racist.

The key section starts at 2:09. It rather makes me like Trump more and Bannon less.



In addition to this evidence of Bannon's thought processes about race and culture, Bannon has praised the Immigration Act of 1924 including the Asian Exclusion Act and the National Origins Act. Bannon and his pal Sessions think the racism of that era was just great and want to bring it back:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/jeff ... breitbart/

This stuff flows from the same eugenic wellspring as the racial purity laws of Germany under the National Socialists: panic over the Yellow Peril, The Passing of the Great Race, racial hygiene theories and all the other pseudoscientific evil of that period.

Today we have people who know they can't openly embrace that discredited ideology, so they skirt around the edges, saying they like the policies and not discussing the ideology. "We are just nationalists, not white nationalists."

I don't buy it.

The man is a racist and usually does a passable job of pretending he is not, just like his buddy Sessions.

Regarding triumphalist pronouncements about "the left" I would suggest that those on "the right" take a pause. Trump barely won this election with less than 50% of the vote and many of those voters are not remotely on board with the whole program of extremists like Bannon.

Most Americans are not on board for this just as most people on "the left" are not the simpering idiots you focus on in your caricatures of them. Hubris isn't just for people named Clinton.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

04 Feb 2017, 3:16 pm

How is Bannon racist, what is the great evidence of this? It's all innuendo and based on smears against the website Breitbart which is no more racist or slanted than the Huffington Post which believe it were made by the same person. What 'the left' is saying is basically boils down to if you believe in borders and national soveirgnty then you are irredeemable racist Nazi who should be given no platform and deserves it if harmed or killed. It is emotional manipulation and every bit demagogic relative to what else is called that.

Conservatives and right thinking people are now employing the techniques of deconstructivism used against them by the same liberal consensus which were at one time also thought of as the barbarians at the gates. Moral relativism is what really won the culture wars and not liberalism/progressivism so what exists is not one enlightened path of Whiggish ascendancy but rather a world of competing worldviews and individual identity groupings which we are told by the "liberal" consensus are all meaningful and equal besides our own which suffers from an original sin that we must forever atone ourselves.

I wholeheartedly reject your racial connotation you associate with nationalism because the Americans that are punish the most are those that were my peers, white/black/hispanic/even asian all suffered because of the policies favored by the big money interests which now control the Democratic party who now don progressive clothes(old money changes with the times every time) Big business are the ones responsible for mass migration legal and otherwise, they want a permanently elastic labor pool to forever depress wages and to curb any collective bargaining rights that could gain by American workers. You don't go after your opponents directly, you go after their power structures and then wilt away on their own. People really don't recognize themselves in the mirror it seems, nothing is new and you can analogue the actions of anyone with anybody if you like to, read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky and I think you'll find it very relevant.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1021
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

04 Feb 2017, 3:32 pm

Dox47 wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/

An excellent piece on Bannon.



Thanks, that is a good piece.

I found this interesting:
Quote:
“What you realize hanging out with investigative reporters is that, while they may be personally liberal, they don’t let that get in the way of a good story,” he says. “And if you bring them a real story built on facts, they’re f---ing badasses, and they’re fair.”


And, evidently, they can be played like a Stradivarius.

There is a lot of good insight into his methods and history there.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1021
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

04 Feb 2017, 3:36 pm

Jacoby wrote:
How is Bannon racist


Anyone who is a fan of the Asian Exclusion Act and says there are too many Asian CEOs in Sillicon Valley fits the description.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

04 Feb 2017, 4:10 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
How is Bannon racist


Anyone who is a fan of the Asian Exclusion Act and says there are too many Asian CEOs in Sillicon Valley fits the description.

What is the context of him saying that?

On the 1925 Immigration Act, is essentially was a quota system be it one based rather crudely on nationality and racist attitudes of the time but it's intentions to preserve the demographic balance of the United States is noted which what they also promised with the 1965 Immigration Act which brought about the opposite in the mass immigration since. Can you believe in borders and not be racist according your definition of it? Is it racist to want to preserve your culture and way of life or is it a right owed to all people? These are the implications I get from people that advocate for open borders and bugs me is there no consistency as it cultural preservation is tolerated some places but not in others.I don't see it as racial thing but rather be it in the national interest of the majority of people in this country, I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe this country is one that gains it legitimacy from the consent of the people or one that rules over the people with only their chosen enlightened path.

Quotas are important thing when it comes to metering out a controlled and sensible immigration policy, truth be told there's a big difference between letting in a 100,000 doctor from India and 100,000 laborers from India and it might be politically correct but I don't think it's wrong for our national interests to take precedent over ill conceived notions of fairness when it comes to immigration.

Would it be wrong to ban Salafi/Wahhabi Islam from the United States? Would that be racist?



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

04 Feb 2017, 4:15 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Steve Bannon is a racist.

The key section starts at 2:09. It rather makes me like Trump more and Bannon less.



What did Bannon say that was racist? Is there a link to the entire interview somewhere?

Quote:
In addition to this evidence of Bannon's thought processes about race and culture, Bannon has praised the Immigration Act of 1924 including the Asian Exclusion Act and the National Origins Act.


Bannon's thought processes about race aren't provided in that video. What little we can glean about his thought processes about culture seem to be in-line with my own. Am I a racist too? Or is there a world of difference between being proud of your race and being proud and protective of your culture?

British culture is one of tolerance, of acceptance for difference, of liberty and equality under the law. Any large-scale immigration that threatens those values, or worse, is downright hostile to those values, is going to face opposition from me and other Brits. That has nothing to do with race, skin colour, ethnicity, etc and everything to do with ideology. A culture is best defined by its thoughts, customs and attitudes, the artistic and intellectual characteristics, etc, and not by the colour of its constituent parts.

When the flag that symbolises those values which you hold dear is labelled racist, and the promotion of your culture within your capital city is deemed 'problematic', is it the colour of your skin or your culture which is being attacked?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... goods.html

Quote:
Bannon and his pal Sessions think the racism of that era was just great and want to bring it back:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/jeff ... breitbart/


As far as I can tell, that's referring to something Sessions said in an interview with Bannon in 2015:

Sessions wrote:
In seven years we'll have the highest percentage of Americans, non-native born, since the founding of the Republic. Some people think we've always had these numbers, and it's not so, it's very unusual, it's a radical change. When the numbers reached about this high in 1924, the president and congress changed the policy, and it slowed down immigration significantly, we then assimilated through the 1965 and created really the solid middle class of America, with assimilated immigrants, and it was good for America. We passed a law that went far beyond what anybody realized in 1965, and we're on a path to surge far past what the situation was in 1924.


He's not advocating a return to 1924. What he is doing is arguing that integration is better for America than multiculturalism and segregation. He's not praising the law, he's praising the outcome of passing that law at that time. The difference is subtle, but highly significant. He's advocating control of immigration, not an end to it.

Even if you can find him directly advocating a return of the 2% of current population restriction (I've tried and turned up nothing), it does not make him racist. He's arguing for preservation of American culture, not superiority of American ethnicity.

Quote:
This stuff flows from the same eugenic wellspring as the racial purity laws of Germany under the National Socialists: panic over the Yellow Peril, The Passing of the Great Race, racial hygiene theories and all the other pseudoscientific evil of that period.


Does it? Or is that simply a different response by a different people to a common societal problem of inter-cultural hostility? One which is probably just as abhorrent to Bannon and Sessions as it is to you and me. If the two are to be compared, consider that the American method of dealing with the problem led to the Civil Rights Movement rather than fascism that threatened to overwhelm the entire world.

Quote:
Today we have people who know they can't openly embrace that discredited ideology, so they skirt around the edges, saying they like the policies and not discussing the ideology. "We are just nationalists, not white nationalists."

I don't buy it.


Why? What racist act or speech can be attributed to the man?

Quote:
The man is a racist and usually does a passable job of pretending he is not, just like his buddy Sessions.


He's a racist because he doesn't appear to be a racist? That explains the sudden Nazi plague I've been hearing about. As you said, I don't buy it.

Quote:
Regarding triumphalist pronouncements about "the left" I would suggest that those on "the right" take a pause. Trump barely won this election with less than 50% of the vote and many of those voters are not remotely on board with the whole program of extremists like Bannon.

Most Americans are not on board for this just as most people on "the left" are not the simpering idiots you focus on in your caricatures of them. Hubris isn't just for people named Clinton.


Who do you think the voters will side with after weeks, months or even years of constantly hearing all about how Bannon is a Nazi, Trump is a Nazi, everyone else associated with them or who supports them is a Nazi, and so on? Which way will they turn if the violent protests continue? How will they vote if, despite the repeated claims of fascism, American industry is thriving and providing jobs, and Trump hasn't annexed Poland (or Mexico)?

If you want people to hunt the wolf, show us some paw prints, a half-eaten carcass, some fur on a barbed-wire fence - literally anything other than stories about the evils of wolves, written by sheep.