President Donald Trump

[gcstomp]

nots, why ask that without answering my question. what is alt-right to you? Do you accept that Steve Bannon, the Chief of Staff, and Chief Strategist of President, was the leading voice, as in he steered the direction and approved the content of Breitbart. Also, Steve Bannon self described Breitbart as the platform for alt-right.

In other words, the primary leading voice to Trump, his most trusted advisor, is a person who has a significant past that should have been a cause of greater outrage but is lost among more scandalous noise.

[nots]

nots, why ask that without answering my question. what is alt-right to you? Do you accept that Steve Bannon, the Chief of Staff, and Chief Strategist of President, was the leading voice, as in he steered the direction and approved the content of Breitbart. Also, Steve Bannon self described Breitbart as the platform for alt-right.

In other words, the primary leading voice to Trump, his most trusted advisor, is a person who has a significant past that should have been a cause of greater outrage but is lost among more scandalous noise.

I don't know what alt-right is. I never heard the term prior to the run up to the election. It appears to be another label or term for far, far right folks but again, I don't know. Who in here specifically do you think is ok with the alt-right?

[gcstomp]

nots, why would you need me to make up a name for you, especially for a term that "I don't know what alt-right is"? I asked "Maybe the problem is that alt right is acceptable to some here, while offensive to others? What does alt right mean to you? Because to me it is basically inviting the clan, minus the outfits, and it has become more accepted in some circles." as in maybe the reason there is such a difference in opinion is we are not talking about same thing, so what does this term mean to you.

I never had a name in mind, and it is simply not possible for you to hold onto repeatedly demanding names, give you names, as clearly that part is important to you, regarding a term that is foreign to you. Please, give me a break, that is absurd and you are escalating in a direction that is senseless.

[Hodor]

Is this where I start swearing?

[The Feral Slasher]

The Democratic Party certainly deserves much of the blame. Greenwald's latest piece covers the challenges facing the party and the dangers of continuing to promote the corporatist wing, as illuminated by the ongoing DNC Chairperson fight.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for-telling-the-truth-showing-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/

"What drove Bernie Sanders’s remarkably potent challenge to Hillary Clinton was the extreme animosity of huge numbers of Democrats — led by its youngest voters — to the values, practices, and corporatist loyalties of the party’s establishment. Unlike the 2008 Democratic primary war — which was far more vicious and nasty but devoid of any real ideological conflict — the 2016 primary was grounded in important and substantive disputes about what the Democratic Party should be, what principles should guide it, and, most important of all, whose interests it should serve."

Perez was quoted as saying the process was rigged. Even though I don't agree with him on this, he quickly retracted.

"So in Tom Perez’s conduct, one sees the mentality and posture that has shaped the Democratic Party: a defense of jobs-killing free trade agreements that big corporate funders love; an inability to speak plainly, without desperately clinging to focus-group, talking-points scripts; a petrified fear of addressing controversial issues even (especially) when they involve severe human rights violations by allies; a religious-like commitment never to offend rich donors; and a limitless willingness to publicly abase oneself in pursuit of power by submitting to an apology ritual for having told the truth.

That is the template that has driven the Democratic Party into a ditch so deep and disastrous that even Vox acknowledges it without euphemisms. That is the template that has alienated voters across the country at all levels of elected office and that enabled the Donald Trump presidency. And it is the template that Democratic Party establishment leaders are more determined than ever to protect and further entrench by ensuring that yet another detached, lifeless functionary who embodies it becomes the next face of the party."

I thought the article below was good. I hope the Democratic Party changes for the better, but from what I've seen that is unlikely.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/trump-election-hillary-clinton-racism-democratic-party/

What do you say to the people who say that now is not the time to “re-litigate” what happened in the primaries and the presidential election? That we have to put it behind us and paper over these differences to fight Trump?

I think we really need to get serious about how we’re going to fight the viciousness that’s about to descend upon us. And we can’t fight that unless we understand how we got here....If you care about those people, and you should, then you should really try to understand why Donald Trump won the election. If you want to shield Hillary Clinton as a candidate, and the Democratic Party as an institution, from that kind of scrutiny, you’re not doing any favors to the people you claim to be representing. You’re really just hurting them in the long run.

[Hodor]

I thought the article below was good. I hope the Democratic Party changes for the better, but from what I've seen that is unlikely.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/trump-election-hillary-clinton-racism-democratic-party/

What do you say to the people who say that now is not the time to “re-litigate” what happened in the primaries and the presidential election? That we have to put it behind us and paper over these differences to fight Trump?

I think we really need to get serious about how we’re going to fight the viciousness that’s about to descend upon us. And we can’t fight that unless we understand how we got here....If you care about those people, and you should, then you should really try to understand why Donald Trump won the election. If you want to shield Hillary Clinton as a candidate, and the Democratic Party as an institution, from that kind of scrutiny, you’re not doing any favors to the people you claim to be representing. You’re really just hurting them in the long run.

Not to reignite but it's pretty clear to me that the centrists in the party whom I consider a Hillary strong hold refuse to have this discussion or dismiss the issue altogether.

[nots]

nots, why would you need me to make up a name for you, especially for a term that "I don't know what alt-right is"? I asked "Maybe the problem is that alt right is acceptable to some here, while offensive to others? What does alt right mean to you? Because to me it is basically inviting the clan, minus the outfits, and it has become more accepted in some circles." as in maybe the reason there is such a difference in opinion is we are not talking about same thing, so what does this term mean to you.

I never had a name in mind, and it is simply not possible for you to hold onto repeatedly demanding names, give you names, as clearly that part is important to you, regarding a term that is foreign to you. Please, give me a break, that is absurd and you are escalating in a direction that is senseless.

Pretty good back pedal there . You said that some people in the room are ok with a group you equate to the klan. Thats a strong, strong statement that i think is unfair. I gather you think so too hence trying to shift the dialogue over to my words, not yours

[Redbirds Fan]

I will say that I don't think that "alt-right" is any more an integral part of the Republican Party that the Weathermen were an integral part of the Democratic Party. The alt-right is way out there.

I do think that too many in the Republican party give too much deference to the alt-right, including our President by having Steve Bannon right there beside him.

EDIT: This is not part of the nots/gcstomp thing, just happens to follow.

[Hornsby]

Is this where I start swearing?

Yes...

[nots]

Is this where I start swearing?

Sure, fire away!

[Hodor]

Dang it!!!

[gcstomp]

Redbird, when you say "I do think that too many in the Republican party give too much deference to the alt-right, including our President by having Steve Bannon right there beside him." That is the point, and the reason I have asked a couple of times what the term alt-right means to you, because it means this to me and we have a disconnect either in definition of term or something more serious.

Steve Bannon, who was executive chair of Breitbart, as in he shaped the direction and approved the output of the outlet. Trump named him as Chief Strategist and Chief of Staff. Bannon himself declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016 and was the lead voice in developing direction of the news outlet. This is not conjecture, this really happened, the Breitbart voice, the opinion and commentary website which has "pushed racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic material" is the brain behind Trump.

[gcstomp]

How about asking this, who likes the appointment of Bannon as the singular most important voice to Trump in executive branch?

On 11-30-2016 When PaleoMan said:
"In my estimation, Bannon is the best potential feature about the Trump Administration bar none. I hope you realize that Alt Right is anyone not mainstream conservative, which is a noxious, soulless brand in my humble opinion. "
See, an honest poster who owns that what he specifically liked about Trump was Bannon, and it was because Bannon was not main stream conservative, but Alt-right. No need to be coy, act like the term is foreign to you, at same time feel it is offensive enough you need a list of names.

[Redbirds Fan]

Redbird, when you say "I do think that too many in the Republican party give too much deference to the alt-right, including our President by having Steve Bannon right there beside him." That is the point, and the reason I have asked a couple of times what the term alt-right means to you, because it means this to me and we have a disconnect either in definition of term or something more serious.

Steve Bannon, who was executive chair of Breitbart, as in he shaped the direction and approved the output of the outlet. Trump named him as Chief Strategist and Chief of Staff. Bannon himself declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016 and was the lead voice in developing direction of the news outlet. This is not conjecture, this really happened, the Breitbart voice, the opinion and commentary website which has "pushed racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic material" is the brain behind Trump.

I don't think you and I have a disconnect. The alt-right is racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic. But I don't think you are necessarily those things just by virtue of being Republican. I do think too many Republicans cater to the alt-right, such as the President, by giving so much power to Steve Bannon. Is the President a racist? I don't know, but it doesn't matter to me, because he is knowingly allowing a racist to make domestic policy decisions for him. The impact will be the same, as is the culpability. The Republicans in Congress who stand around and say nothing about this should be ashamed. Steve Bannon is one step away from David Duke. He just didn't have as big a profile until now.

[gcstomp]

Red, that is a good point to clarify. Alt-right is I would guess a tiny percent of Republicans, definitely imo the minority of them. Vast majority of Republicans are concerned not so much on social issues so much as SCOTUS appointments and economy concerns. But alt-right has a hold on the executive branch, and alt-right means social issues, as in taking away rights from LGBT and being able to legally discriminate against them, or making abortion illegal and being able to criminally charge a woman for getting one, for instance.