Steve Bannon at the Oxford Union

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It seems more and more common for the term to have the context of voter disenfranchisement, but the term is much broader than that.<...>  it tends to get used in political discussion with voter disenfranchisement to be the assumed meaning.

Well, in my defense, it *was* used within a thread in the politics forum.

Cheers

Edited December 1, 2018 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well, in my defense, it *was* used within a thread in the politics forum.

Cheers

...and you were absolutely correct to ask for clarification. We don't all speak the same language...even when we are all speaking "English".

[Alex_Krycek]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Okay, thanks. Like I said, you appear to be using a nonstandard definition of disenfranchisement.

 I was using disenfranchise to refer to the state of being deprived, oppressed, or subjugated, all of which are synonyms according to thesaurus.com.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

I agree they were disengaged, but they were never disenfranchised.

To be clear on my pedantry:

To say that working class people in the United States have been merely "disengaged" is an extreme understatement.  They have been lied to, manipulated, overlooked, shut out, cheated, stolen from, ignored, extorted, wrongfully imprisoned, and generally humiliated at every turn by the political establishment in this country. 

8 hours ago, iNow said:

You know who was disenfranchised, though? Women and black people, hence the sensitivity to misogyny and racism...

Certainly.  But racism and misogyny shouldn't be used as political gambits designed to divide the populace against itself.

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

As an Analogy lets say 2 people are debating an issue from different perspectives. One is Pro and the other is Con. They each get equal time. If Pro spends half of their time acknowledging Con's ideas where their may be common ground but Con doesn't reciprocate and takes all their time for their ideas exclusively Con's ideas winds up with 75% of all the available time. Pro probably loses that debate. More often than not the idea a person hears most becomes accepted. From a time restricted perspective both Pro and Con are better off focusing on what they have to say and avoiding each others points much as possible. 

 

All to often this is the case, but Pro may be winning the battle but losing the war. Con's ideas could be seen as more robust long term and Con may better understand both sides going forward.

Much of this depends on the audience (if there is one) and how knowledgeable and open they might be.

Very good point about the time restricted perspective. More and more that seems to lead to the tactics of getting just your own points across strongly with what time you have, and interrupting the "opponent" when they try to make their case.

Edited December 1, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

To say that working class people in the United States have been merely "disengaged" is an extreme understatement.  They have been lied to, manipulated, overlooked, shut out, cheated, stolen from, ignored, extorted, wrongfully imprisoned, and generally humiliated at every turn by the political establishment in this country. 

We don’t disagree. 

7 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

racism and misogyny shouldn't be used as political gambits designed to divide the populace against itself.

Tell that to Steve Bannon and company 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

"Voter disengagement" could mean a number of things.  It could mean that they were trying to influence black voters not to support Hillary Clinton, which they largely didn't.  Both Democrats and Republicans have an interest in certain segments disengaging from the opposing party, ideally switching sides and voting for the their party instead, or just not voting at all.  This is the whole purpose of negative ads.  Contrast this with Bannon's stated strategy of wanting to convert working class blacks and hispanics to his side and its difficult to tell what they were actually doing with CA.

Clinton did receive the support of black voters. Hillary Clinton Received 89% of the black voted and it accounted for 19% of all the votes she received. Black voters made up less than 2% of Trump's support. As for Hispanics Trump won 28% of the Hispanic vote which is identical to Romney. Here is a link of percentages for 2016 and Here is one to look over previous elections.

Considering what the number actually are I think it is fairly obvious that any rhetoric about converting Black and Hispanic voters was/is just rhetorical nonsense meant to create plausible deniability when accused of racism. Ultimately 88% of every vote Trump received was cast by a White voter compared to just 60% for Clinton. Lets not forget Clinton ultimately won 4 million more votes as well. The overwhelming majority of minorities voted against Trump. Steve Bannon was working diligently to help elect Trump and I find it very hard to believe he wasn't aware of the statistics. So we can debate Bannon's rhetoric forever but the statistics align with the testimony (under oath ) provided by Wylie and by what we see in Conservative districts across the cross. One can argue it is about winning and not about racism. That the rules are such that what Steve Bannon has done and continues to do is legal. However I think there is no arguing that Steve Bannon works against the best interest of minorities assuming one accepts that participation in democracy is in the best interest of minorities.  

9 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I agree.  Every country has a right to control its borders. Indeed, practically every country in the world has stringent immigration policies compared with the US.  The country that is deporting most of the Caravan at the moment is Mexico, and many Mexicans hate the influx of the asylum seekers into their country. Article here.

Mass immigration generally can't be sustained, especially for poorer countries like Hungary, which is why they are so adamant about protecting their borders.  Even the most liberal countries like Sweden are rethinking their immigration policies because of problems with migrants (who are mostly young men).

National Rally in France is one of Bannon's The Movement collaborators. They seek to reduce the amount of immigrants allowed into France to 10,000. Currently France brings in 140,000 a year, link. Here is the U.S. Trump seeks to limit all immigration (Travel visas, Refugees, Asylum seekers, DACA, etc), link. Often immigration discussions are framed around legal vs illegal but ultimately the individuals and  groups Steve Bannon supports seeks to reduce all forms of immigration. There is no honest differentiation between legal and illegal. The policies Bannon supports go after all immigrants regardless of legal status and more pointedly focused on those who are not White. Here  is an example of Steve Bannon starting off insisting the illegal immigration is a serious problem and then attacking work visas (legal) and the companies that endorse them. A clear conflation between legal and illegal immigrants. The message is that all immigrants are bad and all immigration is a problem. 

The assertion that there is an influx of asylum seekers or mass immigration is simply inaccurate. Ever since Humans walked out of Africa migration has been the status quo. The U.S., Canada, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, and so on are countries made up almost entirely of immigrants. Pre and post both world wars migration levels throughout the world changed. During any number of conflicts over the years from Vietnam to Syria to numbers of refugees changed. Any suggestion that we are currently experiencing a peak or an overwhelming unprecedented increase is not true. What Steve Bannon does is argue that immigration must be legal. Which we all agree with. Then at the same time stokes the notion of out of control immigration and promotes new policies to restrict legal immigration. The result is convoluted sort of logic where immigrants are fine provided they are legal paired against policies designed to prevent immigrants from being legal. In practice we end up with situations like the caravan you mentioned. There is a legal process for seeking Asylum in the U.S. . The Trump admin is doing everything they can to prevent Asylum seekers from following that legal process while simultaneously claiming the caravan are illegal immigrants. It is both contradictory and cynical. People in the caravan are not being allowed to follow the legal process. Not just the men but the women and children as well. From the insistence that immigration is worsening to feigning about wanting immigrants to do it legally the whole discussion is tainted with dishonest rhetoric. Steve Bannon is not a truthful participant in this (immigration) discussion. 

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

These seem to be based on "citizenship first", not ethnicity first.  He seems to be an economic nationalist, not a white nationalist.  If you believe in the concept of a nation state and citizenship then his policies are completely logical.  He seems to support a skills based immigration system.

Sure, assuming we ignore or excuse his work to disenfranchise black voters and ignore or excuse the even Bannon acknowledges the alt-right movement attracts bigots. 

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This is factually inaccurate.  There are many factions on the extreme left who want to shut down free speech of conservatives, denying them their constitutional rights.  They've succeeded in many cases.  This has been happening for a while now.  The far left group Antifa for example, openly promotes violence to suppress the right to free assembly and free speech of conservative groups.  The far left uses the stigma of "racist" , "bigot",  "white supremacist" etc to publicly shame speakers and remove them from the public square. They've tried to do this to Jordan Peterson, for example.  There are also many on the left who generally hate white people (or those of European descent), Christians, and openly call for the destruction of the State of Israel. 

Protesting a speaking engagement of Jordan Peterson is not equal to limiting ones ability to vote and participate in Democracy. Both sides protest each other and call each other names. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about legitimate efforts to prohibit ones opposition from participating in the democratic process. From voter disenfranchisement, making it harder for legal permanent resident to become citizens, blocking felons from voting, and etc Conservatives work to keep their opposition from being able to participate. You can not name a single left wing group which seeks to change a single law which would prevent their opposition from voting or running for office. Complaining that someone was called a name by some liberal group is a false equivalency of comical proportions. 

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I see the Republicans at large trying to suppress the vote, but not Bannon.  

And yet Steve Bannon exclusively supports Republicans. Can you name a Democrat Steve Bannon every campaigned for? 

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

His ideas seem to promote a reprioritization away from immigration and towards existing citizens. Some people interpret that as a limitation of participation, but if existing citizens are the ones who have been shut out and left behind, its actually the reverse; Bannon's approach signifies a re-engagement with those who have been disenfranchised. 

Maybe. As I previously said nothing about Democracy ensures the best result. Maybe some of Bannon's policy idea are better than the ideas of his critics. To me it's sort of irrelevant. More over who in the U.S. isn't the son or grandson of an Immigrant? Bannon strongly supports Trump and Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was an immigrant. Four of Trump's 5 children have immigrant mothers. In a country of immigrants what does re-prioritization away from immigration even mean? That I am aware of Steve Bannon does not advocate expanding the size of Native American reservations.  

[Alex_Krycek]

17 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

For a self-proclaimed liberal, you sure are pretty conservative compared to the majority of people on here.

Heart warming story for you.  There's a Trump voter at my workplace.  With vociferous allegiance, he proclaims regularly that Trump will be re-elected in a landslide. 

Now, at first I didn't get along with this guy because of our different political viewpoints.  However, putting politics aside, after a while we became friends.

It's interesting what this guy actually believes, policy wise.  Aside from the occasional homicidal remark towards Hillary Clinton, he generally believes in the same things that many left leaning progressives want:  universal healthcare, an end to the wars in the middle east, more investment in education, protecting social security,  regulations on the big banks and wall street, an end to crony capitalism and legalized bribery in the political system.  The list goes on. 

It seems that many of the political machinations employed by the establishment wings of both parties are meant to keep people divided on social issues so we'll never unite on economic issues. 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It seems that many of the political machinations employed by the establishment wings of both parties are meant to keep people divided on social issues so we'll never unite on economic issues.

That’s only a tiny piece of the puzzle. Algorithms in social media are far more systemic in the ways they divide us, and we ourselves also tend to self-select into likeminded groups.

Then, add another whole layer to this  with the digital manipulation being driven largely by Russia, China, and others and its plain to see that blaming establishment party actors as the primary root of our social divisions misses the boat a bit. 

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

That’s only a tiny piece of the puzzle. Algorithms in social media are far more systemic in the ways they divide us, and we ourselves also tend to self-select into likeminded groups.

Then, add another whole layer to this  with the digital manipulation being driven largely by Russia, China, and others and its plain to see that blaming establishment party actors as the primary root of our social divisions misses the boat a bit. 

Sure.  There are other factors at play.  But the fact that both of our major political parties are beholden to donor money / multinational corporations is the elephant in the room.

And this has been going on for decades, long before social media algorithms and foreign governments jumped into the mix.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He was using the term correctly. It seems more and more common for the term to have the context of voter disenfranchisement, but the term is much broader than that.

I was surprised when you brought it up, but after you did it made me realize how much it tends to get used in political discussion with voter disenfranchisement to be the assumed meaning.

What iNow qouted was part of the the following sentence "Bannon is reengaging with the poor / lower middle class segments of society who have seen their jobs shipped overseas and entire regions (such as the Rust belt) decimated.". It was Whites who overwhelming voted for Trump (88% of all his votes) and Bannon worked for Trump. Whites have the lowest rates of poverty in the country. So saying Bannon engaged poor people needs some sort of qualifier. Blacks and Hispanics were far more likely to be poor and unemployed than whites in the rust belt. 

Quote

 

The poverty rate for non-Hispanic Whites was 8.8 percent in 2016 with 17.3 million individuals in poverty. Neither the poverty rate nor the number in poverty was statistically different from 2015. Non-Hispanic Whites accounted for 61.0 percent of the total population and 42.5 percent of the people in poverty (Table 3). The poverty rate for Blacks decreased to 22.0 percent in 2016, down from 24.1 percent in 2015. The number of Blacks in poverty decreased to 9.2 million, down from 10.0 million. For Asians, the 2016 poverty rate and the number in poverty was 10.1 percent and 1.9 million. Neither estimate for Asians was statistically different from 2015. The poverty rate for Hispanics decreased to 19.4 percent in 2016, down from 21.4 percent in 2015. The number of Hispanics in poverty decreased to 11.1 million, down from 12.1 million.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60-259.pdf

 

 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

There's a Trump voter at my workplace.  ...

It's interesting what this guy actually believes, policy wise.  ... he generally believes in the same things that many left leaning progressives want:  universal healthcare, an end to the wars in the middle east, more investment in education, protecting social security,  regulations on the big banks and wall street, an end to crony capitalism and legalized bribery in the political system.  The list goes on. 

So why does he support Trump?

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Sure.  There are other factors at play.  But the fact that both of our major political parties are beholden to donor money / multinational corporations is the elephant in the room.

And this has been going on for decades, long before social media algorithms and foreign governments jumped into the mix.

Both parties don't actively work to disenfranchise voters though. You already acknowledged in a previous post that is a Republican thing. Another thing both parties don't do is deny climate science. Casually grouping both parties as being beholden to lobbyist is an insincere swing at pragmatism. To an extent everyone is beholden to something but that doesn't mean real differences don't exist. 

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

All to often this is the case, but Pro may be winning the battle but losing the war. Con's ideas could be seen as more robust long term and Con may better understand both sides going forward.

Are you referring to more liberal positions as Pro and more Con as conservative? I.E. Pro progress Con conservative? Or just pro/con debate in general?

[J.C.MacSwell]

26 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Are you referring to more liberal positions as Pro and more Con as conservative? I.E. Pro progress Con conservative? Or just pro/con debate in general?

Just generally. The same as I took Ten oz to mean it.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

the fact that both of our major political parties are beholden to donor money / multinational corporations is the elephant in the room.

Fortunately, this trend seems to be breaking a bit, but yet again mainly on the left. 

Small dollar donations were largely responsible for Bernie Sanders entire campaign ($234M). We saw similar trends in the midterms with the obvious examples being Alexandria Ocasio Cortez ($1.8M) and Beto O’Rourke ($69M) in Texas, but there were others.

Guess also what the very first piece of legislation democrats are putting forth now that they finally control the house? A seeeping anti/corruption and campaign finance reform bill. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/30/18118158/house-democrats-anti-corruption-bill-hr-1-pelosi

Quote

House Democrats unveiled details of their first bill in the new Congress on Friday — a sweeping anti-corruption bill aimed at stamping out the influence of money in politics and expanding voting rights.

This is House Resolution 1 — the first thing House Democrats will tackle after the speaker’s vote in early January. To be clear, this legislation has little-to-no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate or being signed by President Donald Trump.

But by making anti-corruption their No. 1 priority, House Democrats are throwing down the gauntlet for Republicans. A vast majority of Americans want to get the influence of money out of politics, and want Congress to pass laws to do so, according to a 2018 Pew Research survey. Given Trump’s multitude of scandals, it looks bad for Republicans to be the party opposing campaign finance reform — especially going into 2020. 

“Our best friend in this debate is the public,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Friday

 

Of course some of this is strategic and about optics, but I’m struggling to envision the GOP putting forward such a bill, or more to the point... Steve Bannon. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by iNow

[Alex_Krycek]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Fortunately, this trend seems to be breaking a bit, but yet again mainly on the left. 

Small dollar donations were largely responsible for Bernie Sanders entire campaign ($234M). We saw similar trends in the midterms with the obvious examples being Alexandria Ocasio Cortez ($1.8M) and Beto O’Rourke ($69M) in Texas, but there were others.

Guess also what the very first piece of legislation democrats are putting forth now that they finally control the house? A seeeping anti/corruption and campaign finance reform bill. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/30/18118158/house-democrats-anti-corruption-bill-hr-1-pelosi

 

Of course some of this is strategic and about optics, but I’m struggling to envision the GOP putting forward such a bill, or more to the point... Steve Bannon. 

Great.  But if the Dems controlled the Senate and Presidency too, would they really be so intent on passing this?  I would hope so, but the realist in me agrees that this is mainly about optics.  However, this proposal pushes the Overton window towards campaign finance reform so ultimately I'm for it.  This is something Ralph Nadar proposed decades ago but of course nobody listened.  

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Both parties don't actively work to disenfranchise voters though. You already acknowledged in a previous post that is a Republican thing. Another thing both parties don't do is deny climate science. Casually grouping both parties as being beholden to lobbyist is an insincere swing at pragmatism. To an extent everyone is beholden to something but that doesn't mean real differences don't exist. 

True.  But the point is if you really scrutinize the Democrats (especialy those who have been in office for a while) they support much of the same policies that Republicans do.  Not socially, but economically.  Joe Manchin of West Virginia is an example.  There's a term "RINO"  (Republican in Name Only).   Manchin should be called a "DINO".   Here he is standing up for business interests over the Environmental Protection Agency regarding what should constitute protected water:  ARTICLE

The contributions (bribes) Joe Manchin has taken can be viewed here:  OPEN SECRETS

16 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

So why does he support Trump?

In believe he sees Trump as a champion of the working class who will bring about these reforms on behalf of the average American.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

this proposal pushes the Overton window towards campaign finance reform so ultimately I'm for it. 

Me too

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

In believe he sees Trump as a champion of the working class who will bring about these reforms on behalf of the average American.

Is he unaware of Trump's policies?

[iNow]

Simplified: Some people are too busy with other parts of life to accurately distinguish between the pomp and the circumstance. Other people can, but don’t care. 

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

True.  But the point is if you really scrutinize the Democrats (especialy those who have been in office for a while) they support much of the same policies that Republicans do.  Not socially, but economically.  Joe Manchin of West Virginia is an example.  There's a term "RINO"  (Republican in Name Only).   Manchin should be called a "DINO".   Here he is standing up for business interests over the Environmental Protection Agency regarding what should constitute protected water:  ARTICLE

The contributions (bribes) Joe Manchin has taken can be viewed here:  OPEN SECRETS

I don't think Joe Manchin relevant to this conversation. Manchin is not a left wing  equivalent to Steve Bannon nor is he a well regarded voice within the Democratic party .Democrats are attempting to take Joe Manchin to task for the matters you linked. Stating that Joe Manchin is bad too doesn't make Steve Bannon any less bad. 

Quote

 

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive lawmakers expressed uneasiness on Friday with the likelihood that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) would be leading Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

At a rally outside the Capitol, Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic lawmakers and other incoming Democratic freshmen said allowing Manchin to become the ranking member of the committee would undercut the momentum behind their "Green New Deal" proposal that calls for transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy sources within a decade of initiating the plan.

The incoming New York Democrat pointed to Manchin's support of fossil fuels, as well the contributions the industry has made to his election campaigns.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/ocasio-cortez-manchin-energy-committee-1002853

 

We could both easily single out an endless number specific flawed politicians and link articles to their failings. I don't think pointing out former GOP Senator Larry Craig being arrested in a men's room for soliciting an uncover officer or Former Democratic Senator John Edwards affair matter to a conversation about Steve Bannon. It would just be whataboutism. 

Steve Bannon working as Trump Chief Strategist pushed for the U.S. to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement.  Steve Bannon is credited for having been the strongest voice in Trump's ear on the matter. In the Book Fire and Fury Michael Wolfe outlined how Steve Bannon fought with other in the White House to get Executive Order 13783 signed which gutted the National Environmental Policy Act. 

[Alex_Krycek]

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Is he unaware of Trump's policies?

He watches a lot of Fox News, what can I say.

A direct quote from him at one point was:  "If you really want to know what's going on in the world, watch Fox."

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Simplified: Some people are too busy with other parts of life to accurately distinguish between the pomp and the circumstance. Other people can, but don’t care. 

I think their is a specific moral characteristic at play. One deeply ingrained in U.S. culture. A fan is supposed to support their team when their team is winning or losing. It's a weird principle where it is considered good to stick with ones team no matter what. Those who switch teams are labelled bandwagon jumpers or fair weather fans. People are expected to stay loyal. In sports fan will say include themselves as a part of the organization by saying "we" when discussing how or what a team is doing: "We made a trade", "We had a bad good", "We need a new coach", and etc. Of course it isn't only sports. It carries over to geography, race, religion, politics, and etc. People regularly proclaim pride at staying true to their roots. In many situations it isn't culturally acceptable to change. Worse than being a fair weather fan is being a sell out, turncoat, Uncle Tom, and so on. 

Within everyone own paradigm they consider their beliefs well considered. Humans are a group living species. We evolved in tribes and being loyal to those tribes was important to our evolution. The size of tribes and the breadth of things for one to be loyal to has increased exponentially in a relatively short period of time. Humans are still adapting.  

[Alex_Krycek]

On 12/1/2018 at 2:24 PM, Ten oz said:

Protesting a speaking engagement of Jordan Peterson is not equal to limiting ones ability to vote and participate in Democracy. Both sides protest each other and call each other names. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about legitimate efforts to prohibit ones opposition from participating in the democratic process. From voter disenfranchisement, making it harder for legal permanent resident to become citizens, blocking felons from voting, and etc Conservatives work to keep their opposition from being able to participate. You can not name a single left wing group which seeks to change a single law which would prevent their opposition from voting or running for office. Complaining that someone was called a name by some liberal group is a false equivalency of comical proportions. 

Yes, I understand what you mean, and that's what groups like ANTIFA are doing.  They promote the use of physical violence to "de-platform" people they consider racist / sexist, etc.  First, you're allowed to be racist and sexist under the constitution, and you're allowed to talk about your views.  Is it an ignorant viewpoint?  As a secular humanist I think so, but I can't stop others from being racist by using violence.  Second, who gets to decide who is racist and who is sexist?  If someone is opposed to mass-immigration, often they're labeled as "racist"  by ANTIFA and the far-left and are subjected to extreme actions to prevent them from speaking.  If the far-left has their way, Bannon would not have been able to talk, nor Peterson, nor anyone on the right.  (Not that I'm conflating Bannon and Peterson - as they are worlds apart in my mind.)  Ultimately groups on the far left are actively working to shut down free speech, freedom of assembly, and are going so far as to harass conservative pundits at their home (as is what happened to Tucker Carlson when a disgruntled mob showed up at his house a few weeks ago, banging on his door and threatening his wife)  Article Here.  So it's not just the right who are subverting the democratic process.

 

Quote

Maybe. As I previously said nothing about Democracy ensures the best result. Maybe some of Bannon's policy idea are better than the ideas of his critics. To me it's sort of irrelevant. More over who in the U.S. isn't the son or grandson of an Immigrant? Bannon strongly supports Trump and Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was an immigrant. Four of Trump's 5 children have immigrant mothers. In a country of immigrants what does re-prioritization away from immigration even mean? That I am aware of Steve Bannon does not advocate expanding the size of Native American reservations.  

Yes, but there's a difference between controlled, legal immigration and unchecked, mass immigration.  The former is productive if managed effectively while the latter is not sustainable. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

He watches a lot of Fox News, what can I say.

A direct quote from him at one point was:  "If you really want to know what's going on in the world, watch Fox."

 

I don't have cable and am years removed from the day to day B.S. of cable news. While I understand FoxNews to be worse I honestly no longer have the ability to tell the difference between it and the rest. Every time I catch a bit of cable news playing what I see and hear always seems very irresponsible. Not just hyperbolic but legitimately dangerous. I suppose it is like anything though. I can't distinguish between country music artists either because I don't listen to it. To each their own. I rather do just about anything else rather than watch FoxNews or cable news in general.

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't have cable and am years removed from the day to day B.S. of cable news. While I understand FoxNews to be worse I honestly no longer have the ability to tell the difference between it and the rest. Every time I catch a bit of cable news playing what I see and hear always seems very irresponsible. Not just hyperbolic but legitimately dangerous. I suppose it is like anything though. I can't distinguish between country music artists either because I don't listen to it. To each their own. I rather do just about anything else rather than watch FoxNews or cable news in general.

I disagree with you there.  I think some cable news shows are worth watching, such as Anderson Cooper 360, The Lead with Jake Tapper, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, Cuomo Prime Time, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, and a few others.  However overall I prefer independent media sources such as Secular Talk with Kyle Kulinski.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Alex_Krycek