US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

[Jaxom 1974]

I didn't realize that there was a second "rogue" twitter account from "inside" the WH.  Kinda disappointing really.  Now neither can be looked at as anything but dueling entertainment, regardless if either is actually real...

[James Arryn]

34 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

Oh, you absolutely can. The Papacy was not known for its support of the Enlightenment, and Pope Francis is very actively communicating with Muslim leaders. So I think this position is perfectly valid (though I disagree). But Bannon himself is a Roman Catholic…?

I am still struggling to piece together a consistent picture of the man. Though I follow American politics only tangentially, this seems important. I’d have hoped that some of the American here had made more progress than I have; I’m still at the stage of random googling and wading through mountains of obviously malevolent characterisation from sources that hate him. Let me repeat: That is not what I’m after. I already found that. It’s not enlightening. That’s like reading Tea Party blogs about Obama.

 

I'm confused.

If you don't know what he is, how can you decide what is/isn't a malevolent characterization? If all you had to go on for Obama was what the Tea Party said about him, how would you know it was untrue? I'm wondering if your camera isn't getting in the way of your photograph.

Hypotheyical: what if he is (more or less) how he is depicted? When will you ever get a 'better' rendition?

[Zorral]

44 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

Oh, you absolutely can. The Papacy was not known for its support of the Enlightenment, and Pope Francis is very actively communicating with Muslim leaders. So I think this position is perfectly valid (though I disagree). But Bannon himself is a Roman Catholic…?

I am still struggling to piece together a consistent picture of the man. Though I follow American politics only tangentially, this seems important. I’d have hoped that some of the American here had made more progress than I have; I’m still at the stage of random googling and wading through mountains of obviously malevolent characterisation from sources that hate him. Let me repeat: That is not what I’m after. I already found that. It’s not enlightening. That’s like reading Tea Party blogs about Obama.

 

That question is both satirical and rhetorical.  We'v been watching these ilks working with every breath they take for decades to roll back the Englightenment and go for total autocracy.  Many of them are descendants of the people who established the Carolina company, which was planned from the gitgo to be a feudal SLAVE SYSTEM, with royals, nobility and all the rest for the slave owning elite and oppression and labor for everyone else.  No civil liberties, no public safety, no public good for anyone.  It's all for THEM.

 

 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Skimming through the last through pages and the felt outrage over the powerless Democrats, I can't help, but to form the heretic thought, if all those protesters had put half the energy into rallyes and campaigns for HRC back then, then all of that could've been prevented.

[Week]

36 minutes ago, Notone said:

Skimming through the last through pages and the felt outrage over the powerless Democrats, I can't help, but to form the heretic thought, if all those protesters had put half the energy into rallyes and campaigns for HRC back then, then all of that could've been prevented.

Wishful thinking (which I do - at times - share) - but I don't think that it would have overcome 1) the blind hatred/distrust of HRC (YLOGTFO*) or 2) Full appreciation of the horror of a Trump presidency. The concern with Trump was typically voiced as either apocalyptic or his character - where the first is not convincing in and of itself and the latter didn't matter to the GOP.

*Youtube links or GTFO**

**Excerpts from Wikileaks without context, analysis, or formatting are also accepted

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Yes, but the worst of HRC would still be better than Orange Doofus.

Oh right, now I am even obliged by thread title to use a youtube link. Let's check why Italy wants to be second.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

I forget who it was that was up in arms over what Sen. Warren did with Coretta King's letter.  On twitter they were loving it and taking McConnel's words as a sort of rallying cry.  

Nevertheless, she persisted.

So I guess it was a wasted effort if one thinks that keeping the progressive base motivated is a waste.  

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

Renegade Cut on Trump and his favorite movie Citizen Kane:

https://youtu.be/KrBuWXVEaiU

[Martell Spy]

Quote

President Donald Trump’s chief strategist has been cultivating a bond with a right-wing cardinal who’s waging war against Pope Francis.

Sounds like the back story for the Young Pope HBO series.

Quote

 

I forget who it was that was up in arms over what Sen. Warren did with Coretta King's letter.  On twitter they were loving it and taking McConnel's words as a sort of rallying cry.  

Nevertheless, she persisted.

So I guess it was a wasted effort if one thinks that keeping the progressive base motivated is a waste.

 

 

Yeah, I don't think some on this board get how pissed the Democratic base is right now. Personally, I wanted Democrats to oppose the really bad Cabinet picks, of which there were many. That was similar to the position of the Democratic Senators when this all started. However, there were a ton of Democrats who wanted extreme opposition to all Cabinet nominations and they let the Dem Senators know this in loud terms, including literally getting in Schumer's face. (Or in his grill as Dave Brat might say)

I think the Muslim ban really galvanized the Democratic base. I know it really activated me and people I know.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Yet, I somehow can't help the feeling, that not everybody who is attending the anti-Trump rallies across the States now, did cast their vote for Clinton (of the eligible voters ofc) back when it could've made a difference, and avoided that shitshow. And that thought is somehow frustrating. I am thinking of the Bernie or Bust folks. That's not a dig against Sanders, who kept on telling his support to vote for Clinton. 

Oh, I still need an obligatory youtube link. 

 

Austria wants to be second.

[aceluby]

1 minute ago, Notone said:

Yet, I somehow can't help the feeling, that not everybody who is attending the anti-Trump rallies across the States now, did cast their vote for Clinton (of the eligible voters ofc) back when it could've made a difference, and avoided that shitshow. And that thought is somehow frustrating. I am thinking of the Bernie or Bust folks. That's not a dig against Sanders, who kept on telling his support to vote for Clinton. 

I have MANY friends who were Bernie or Busters and they take absolutely zero responsibility for these things and are still galvanized against the DNC, despite many participating in these protests.  There isn't any self reflection on choices they made, or any kind of link that those choices made what is happening today actually happen.  Hell, I've had a few toss around the idea of actually voting for the Orange Shit Stain, and even those guys won't reflect at all on their decisions.

It's maddening.

[JGP]

26 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I think the Muslim ban really galvanized the Democratic base. I know it really activated me and people I know.

 Leftist Sleeper Agents are not those with whom one fucks. What is the pass code...

 

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

If you don't know what he is, how can you decide what is/isn't a malevolent characterization? If all you had to go on for Obama was what the Tea Party said about him, how would you know it was untrue? I'm wondering if your camera isn't getting in the way of your photograph.

Hypotheyical: what if he is (more or less) how he is depicted? When will you ever get a 'better' rendition?

Can't speak for anyone other than myself, but if I'm hearing/reading someone's opinion about another, who is using choice quotes or anecdotes about said individual without context or background depth, I don't tend to take it on faith. I'm with HE, it's been quite difficult to figure out anything substantial about the guy [Bannon] online, but if he actually, truly buys into all this Fourth Turning bullshit, the Grey Champion and all that...

Welp.

[Mindwalker]

Mars Second.

[James Arryn]

27 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

 

Can't speak for anyone other than myself, but if I'm hearing/reading someone's opinion about another, who is using choice quotes or anecdotes about said individual without context or background depth, I don't tend to take it on faith. I'm with HE, it's been quite difficult to figure out anything substantial about the guy [Bannon] online, but if he actually, truly buys into all this Fourth Turning bullshit, the Grey Champion and all that...

Welp.

Oh, sure, take everything with various seasonings, but that's not what HE said, he is being categorical and dismissive. That means he either dismisses the sources as inherently biased (which can still inform) or w/e he's hearing is dismissed because it doesn't conform with what can only be described as preconceptions. Now, that can range...if people are saying someone walks on water or breathes fire, those preconceived parameters seem reasonable qualifiers. But if they're more a matter of moral/ethical/political norms or w/e, that's you already deciding what you're going to hear according to what you either want or expect to hear.

 

Iow, HE seems to have a high degree of certainty about what is/isn't credible which seems to fit pretty poorly with both his stated ignorance and quest for information about the guy. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Wishful thinking (which I do - at times - share) - but I don't think that it would have overcome 1) the blind hatred/distrust of HRC (YLOGTFO*) or 2) Full appreciation of the horror of a Trump presidency. The concern with Trump was typically voiced as either apocalyptic or his character - where the first is not convincing in and of itself and the latter didn't matter to the GOP.

*Youtube links or GTFO**

**Excerpts from Wikileaks without context, analysis, or formatting are also accepted

Let us not FORGET voter repression and the gerrymandering and the many other shenanigans they were up to with voting.  Recall how Cheny melted down because they thought they'd done it all to keep Obama from being elected -- and they'd been wrong -- something hadn't fallen into its rightful cog place. They have made sure since that can't happen again.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Gorsuch apparently told a Democratic Senator in a private meeting that Trump's tweets re judiciary were "demoralizing" and "disheartening" and that has been confirmed by Gorsuch's PR team.  Per CNN.  Positioning for hearing.  Probably a genuine sentiment.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

I have MANY friends who were Bernie or Busters and they take absolutely zero responsibility for these things and are still galvanized against the DNC, despite many participating in these protests.  There isn't any self reflection on choices they made, or any kind of link that those choices made what is happening today actually happen.  Hell, I've had a few toss around the idea of actually voting for the Orange Shit Stain, and even those guys won't reflect at all on their decisions.

It's maddening.

I've seen almost the exact opposite reaction from a lot of my friends who were either Bernie or Bust or just didn't vote/didn't think it would matter. Now almost all of them are in "break glass in case of emergency" mode.

 

2 hours ago, Notone said:

Skimming through the last through pages and the felt outrage over the powerless Democrats, I can't help, but to form the heretic thought, if all those protesters had put half the energy into rallyes and campaigns for HRC back then, then all of that could've been prevented.

I tend to agree, give how narrow the margin was in PA, WI and MI.  

[Swordfish]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've seen almost the exact opposite reaction from a lot of my friends who were either Bernie or Bust or just didn't vote/didn't think it would matter. Now almost all of them are in "break glass in case of emergency" mode.

 

I tend to agree, give how narrow the margin was in PA, WI and MI.  

Hilary should've been a better(aka different) candidate.  The buck stops there.

As for whether or not disliking the other guy is sufficient to motivate voters and sweep you to victory, rather than having them actually be enthusiastic about your actual candidate is, I suppose, debatable, but I wouldn't wager the homestead on that strategy.

 

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Hilary should've been a better(aka different) candidate.  The buck stops there.

As for whether or not disliking the other guy is sufficient to motivate voters and sweep you to victory, rather than having them actually be enthusiastic about your actual candidate is, I suppose, debatable, but I wouldn't wager the homestead on that strategy.

 She should've been, absolutely, but folks also should have taken a harder look at Trump and bitten the bullet. Just my humble opinion.  

 

/Never has the "lesser of two evils" argument been more important or held more water.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, JEORDHl said:

 Can't speak for anyone other than myself, but if I'm hearing/reading someone's opinion about another, who is using choice quotes or anecdotes about said individual without context or background depth, I don't tend to take it on faith. I'm with HE, it's been quite difficult to figure out anything substantial about the guy [Bannon] online, but if he actually, truly buys into all this Fourth Turning bullshit, the Grey Champion and all that...Welp.

I'd also take that article with a bit of salt, but Mexal provided a link that's very good to better understand Bannon:
http://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-6b-2017-steve-bannon-words?gclid=COPSlb3GgNICFQKNaQod4OsNbQ
I think that link was particularly good because it contains no analysis, just Bannon's speech and his answers to questions. And it makes it obvious that he genuinely believes in a global war against what he calls "jihadist Islamic fascism." What's a bit scary though is that when asked which is the greatest threat between secularism and the Muslim world, his answer doesn't make it crystal clear that he makes a distinction between Islam as a whole and jihadism specifically.

Quote

 

Questioner: What do you think is the major threat today, to the Judeo-Christian Civilization? Secularism, or the Muslim world? In my humble opinion, they’re just trying to defend themselves from our cultural invasion. Thank you.

Bannon: It’s a great question. I certainly think secularism has sapped the strength of the Judeo-Christian West to defend its ideals, right?

If you go back to your home countries and your proponent of the defense of the Judeo-Christian West and its tenets, oftentimes, particularly when you deal with the elites, you’re looked at as someone who is quite odd. So it has kind of sapped the strength.

But I strongly believe that whatever the causes of the current drive to the caliphate was — and we can debate them, and people can try to deconstruct them — we have to face a very unpleasant fact. And that unpleasant fact is that there is a major war brewing, a war that’s already global. It’s going global in scale, and today’s technology, today’s media, today’s access to weapons of mass destruction, it’s going to lead to a global conflict that I believe has to be confronted today. Every day that we refuse to look at this as what it is, and the scale of it, and really the viciousness of it, will be a day where you will rue that we didn’t act [unintelligible].

 

Fact is, Bannon is a bit ambiguous. He seems to reject the racist aspect of groups like the British National Front, but at the same time he clearly says he believes in something like a clash of civilizations. Perhaps he thinks that there's a difference to be made between purely racial or ethnic hatred, and religious or cultural hatred ; in other words, he seems to promote the view that Islamism (if not Islam) is the enemy, but that such an enemy should not be described in ethnic or racial terms.
I think because he was predicting a global war in 2014 it is possible for him to believe in a "Fourth Turning" though I wouldn't present this as a fact. Believing in a global conflict between the "Judeo-Christian West" and "jihadist Islamic fascism" is bad enough though. I've seen and heard many people advance similar views in the past years (including my own parents and father-in-law tbh) and such a world view seems very dangerous to me, because it easily leads people to stop making the important differences between Islam, Islamism and jihadism, and to forget that jihadism is still a fringe phenomenon in the Muslim world. And when you have someone like that in the White House, you have to wonder how and even if the US will keep providing vital help to moderate Muslims around the world. In other words, predicting a global conflict between the West and Islam could easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.