Steve Bannon at the Oxford Union

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.  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 assemply, 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.

Breitbart News Network is a real and tangle thing. Steve Bannon's "The Movement" is a real organization which partners with political parties and candidates across Europe. Steve Bannon worked as Chief Strategist for the President of the United States. Steve Bannon had an office in the White House. ANTIFA doesn't run candidates of fund political campaigns. ANTIFA to my knowledge doesn't have any formal funding, own any sort of media platforms, have supporters in govt, or etc. I can't name a single member of ANTIFA.  Seriously, I can't name one ANTIFA supporter. They literally get arrested when they show up and disrupt protests. No elected Politicians I am aware of on the left or right claim to support or defend them. ANTIFA is not the lefts version of the Alt-Right.  On ANTIFA's wiki page, here , it just list the group as being "autonomous". No one is associated with ANTIFA and its numbers are unknown. Mentioning  ANTIFA only poisons this conversation. ANTIFA isn't a tangible group worth discussion.  

 

18 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

Maybe you are right. As I pointed out I lack the ability to distinguish between them. From what I have seen, very little, they all appear to report news is an very hyperbolic anxiety inducing many designed to create panic. 

[dimreepr]

The news is just the latest information passed through a particular bias...

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Breitbart News Network is a real and tangle thing. Steve Bannon's "The Movement" is a real organization which partners with political parties and candidates across Europe. Steve Bannon worked as Chief Strategist for the President of the United States. Steve Bannon had an office in the White House.

Yet Steve Bannon's movement does not promote violence.  Please cite a direct source where Bannon promotes the use of force to silence dissent. 

Quote

ANTIFA doesn't run candidates of fund political campaigns. ANTIFA to my knowledge doesn't have any formal funding, own any sort of media platforms, have supporters in govt, or etc.

Not yet anyway.  Let's hope that never happens.

Quote

I can't name a single member of ANTIFA.  Seriously, I can't name one ANTIFA supporter. They literally get arrested when they show up and disrupt protests. No elected Politicians I am aware of on the left or right claim to support or defend them. ANTIFA is not the lefts version of the Alt-Right.  On ANTIFA's wiki page, here , it just list the group as being "autonomous". No one is associated with ANTIFA and its numbers are unknown. Mentioning  ANTIFA only poisons this conversation. ANTIFA isn't a tangible group worth discussion. 

Just because you are not aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.  Watch this VICE documentary in its entirety and hear it from the horse's mouth. 
ANTIFA VIDEO  These Antifa members say they're fed up with protests not accomplishing anything and actively promote and support violence.

But, there's just standing up to Nazis, you might say.  Actually, no.  The term "fascist" and Nazi means what they want it to mean. If you're against mass immigration, for example, you qualify as a fascist to them.  If you oppose the use of state force to control speech regarding transgender people, as Jordan Peterson does, you qualify.  If you support a particular political candidate who they are against, you qualify.  So you have a group of people who arbitrarily condemn and carry out extrajudicial punishment on those who are their political opponents.  That is entirely relevant to the conversation, and thinking it can't happen just because it's "your side" is willful blindness. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

There are no enemies, just people...

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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. 

Every country Steve Bannon advocates and lobbies in already have "controlled" immigration. ""unchecked" or "mass" immigration isn't on the rise or happening at increased rates.. Here in the U.S. we have immigration laws, borders, and numerous Agencies charged to enforce and protect both. Steve Bannon specifically singles out Asians , Muslims , and Mexicans as the groups which he wants to be limited. As linked (Asian, Muslims, Mexicans) Steve Bannon wants to end work visa programs which he links to Asia, limit travel from Muslim majority countries which he links to terrorism, and limit any and all programs imaginable to limit immigration into the U.S. from Mexico. Steve Bannon is not trying to combat illegal immigration. Steve Bannon is combating legal and controlled immigration. 

We can discuss the pro and cons of it but please to do not mis-characterize it. No one is pro illegal, unchecked, or mass immigration. 

13 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Yet Steve Bannon's movement does not promote violence.  Please cite a direct source where Bannon promotes the use of force to silence dissent. 

Not yet anyway.  Let's hope that never happens.

Just because you are not aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.  Watch this VICE documentary in its entirety and hear it from the horse's mouth. 
ANTIFA VIDEO  These Antifa members say they're fed up with protests not accomplishing anything and actively promote and support violence.

But, there's just standing up to Nazis, you might say.  Actually, no.  The term "fascist" and Nazi means what they want it to mean. If you're against mass immigration, for example, you qualify as a fascist to them.  If you oppose the use of state force to control speech regarding transgender people, as Jordan Peterson does, you qualify.  If you support a particular political candidate who they are against, you qualify.  So you have a group of people who arbitrarily condemn and carry out extrajudicial punishment on those who are their political opponents.  That is entirely relevant to the conversation, and thinking it can't happen just because it's "your side" is willful blindness. 

Can you name one ANTIFA leader or one Politician in office who supports ANTIFA? 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour 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 hope you were able to explain things to him.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I just watched the Bannon Oxford Speech and Q&A. Very interesting what he predicts for 2020, about how Trump will be forced to the right by the House (Investigations etc), Clinton, Booker et al will pull the Democrats to the Left, and a new "unity" party will form in the middle to make it a 3 way race.  It comes just before the hour mark with the question asked at 57:30:

   

                                                            

Edited December 2, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Very interesting what he predicts for 2020

If the future was predictable he may have a Point.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If the future was predictable he may have a Point.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Is Point capitalized for some particular reason?

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Is Point capitalized for some particular reason?

no. broken keyboard.

Edited December 2, 2018 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trump will be forced to the right by the House

He's hardly a communist to start with. How far to the RIght can he go?

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

He's hardly a communist to start with. How far to the RIght can he go?

I haven't read it all but for what it's  worth:

"The political positions of United States President Donald Trump (sometimes referred to as Trumpism^[1][2]) have elements from across the political spectrum"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

I also don't quite understand how House investigations push him further right, but Bannon seems to say it is because that is where his base is.

Edited December 2, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I haven't read it all but for what it's  worth:

"The political positions of United States President Donald Trump (sometimes referred to as Trumpism^[1][2]) have elements from across the political spectrum"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

 

 

when wiki gets it wrong... 

Edited December 2, 2018 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

when wiki gets it wrong... 

Same link:

"Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987 and since that time has changed his party affiliation five times. In 1999, Trump changed his party affiliation to the Independence Party of New York. In August 2001, Trump changed his party affiliation to Democratic. In September 2009, Trump changed his party affiliation back to the Republican Party. In December 2011, Trump changed to "no party affiliation" (independent). In April 2012, Trump again returned to the Republican Party"

Is any of that part quoted factually incorrect?

Edited December 2, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[John Cuthber]

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

have elements from across the political spectrum"

DT's  policies can change across the whole spectrum over the course of a long lunch.
I have heard him talk about supporting the little guy etc, but I never heard of him actually doing it.

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is any of that part quoted factually incorrect?

I don't see why . Others say much the same

https://www.thoughtco.com/was-donald-trump-a-democrat-3367571

Edited December 2, 2018 by John Cuthber

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

DT's  policies can change across the whole spectrum over the course of a long lunch.
I have heard him talk about supporting the little guy etc, but I never heard of him actually doing it.

I don't see why . Others say much the same

https://www.thoughtco.com/was-donald-trump-a-democrat-3367571

One of his goals that has seemed consistent is to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. To some degree he has succeeded in that.

Anyway...enough of my "defending" Trump...

More my point of interest was the potential for emergence of a moderate centrist party. Something I would like to see if the two current ones remain polarized.                                                                 

 

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I haven't read it all but for what it's  worth:

"The political positions of United States President Donald Trump (sometimes referred to as Trumpism^[1][2]) have elements from across the political spectrum"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

I also don't quite understand how House investigations push him further right, but Bannon seems to say it is because that is where his base is.

Trump's rhetoric places him on every side of everything. Ask Trump a direct question about any number of issues and he responds with some version of "Some people are for it, I am looking into it, but it can be a terrible thing, but I think maybe it is worth looking at, if it doesn't happen I am okay with that, so we will all just have to see what happens. Either way is fine." It is best to focus on what actually happens and ignore the rest. 

The extent to which Trump lies  and masks reality is staggering. Trump's falsehoods are larger than we can even wrap our heads around. Take the issues going on with Saudi Arabia. Trump has been running around touting a $110 billion Arms deal with Saudi Arabia as a primary reason to not respond too aggressively in the wake of Khashoggi's murder. Most of of find such reasoning in and of itself reprehensible. There has been countless op-eds and debates about whether or not that excuse is acceptable. Turns out Saudi Arabia isn't even purchasing anywhere near $110 Billions. The real amount is less than $15 billion. Saudi Arabia has agreed to 14.5 billion worth of potential sales if we add up all pending agreements. So not only has the excuse been a poor one but it was a lie anyway. Who knows WTF Trump's true motivations are on the subject. Point being that only what happens can be considered. Nothing Trump advocates can or ever should be accepted. It is nearly always some combination of exaggeration, confabulation, conflation, misdirection, and bold face lie. 

As for Steve Bannon's predictive skills one week before the midterm election Steve Bannon said only 25 House seat were in play, polls under represented Trump's support, and the GOP would keep the House if Trump voters turnout Here. As of today Democrats picked up 39 House seat and I believe one race still hasn't been called. Any number of political pundits called it better than Steve Bannon did. 

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

One of his goals that has seemed consistent is to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. To some degree he has succeeded in that.

Anyway...enough of my "defending" Trump...

More my point of interest was the potential for emergence of a moderate centrist party. Something I would like to see if the two current ones remain polarized.                                                                 

 

You should confuse a goal with a talking point. Trump's trade war has been hurt manufacturing. If we focus on the actual policies which have come out of Trump's White House rather than the sh!t Trump talks it is clear that manufacturing jobs don't matter to Trump.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Trump's rhetoric places him on every side of everything. Ask Trump a direct question about any number of issues and he responds with some version of "Some people are for it, I am looking into it, but it can be a terrible thing, but I think maybe it is worth looking at, if it doesn't happen I am okay with that, so we will all just have to see what happens. Either way is fine." It is best to focus on what actually happens and ignore the rest. 

The extent to which Trump lies  and masks reality is staggering. Trump's falsehoods are larger than we can even wrap our heads around. Take the issues going on with Saudi Arabia. Trump has been running around touting a $110 billion Arms deal with Saudi Arabia as a primary reason to not respond too aggressively in the wake of Khashoggi's murder. Most of of find such reasoning in and of itself reprehensible. There has been countless op-eds and debates about whether or not that excuse is acceptable. Turns out Saudi Arabia isn't even purchasing anywhere near $110 Billions. The real amount is less than $15 billion. Saudi Arabia has agreed to 14.5 billion worth of potential sales if we add up all pending agreements. So not only has the excuse been a poor one but it was a lie anyway. Who knows WTF Trump's true motivations are on the subject. Point being that only what happens can be considered. Nothing Trump advocates can or ever should be accepted. It is nearly always some combination of exaggeration, confabulation, conflation, misdirection, and bold face lie. 

As for Steve Bannon's predictive skills one week before the midterm election Steve Bannon said only 25 House seat were in play, polls under represented Trump's support, and the GOP would keep the House if Trump voters turnout Here. As of today Democrats picked up 39 House seat and I believe one race still hasn't been called. Any number of political pundits called it better than Steve Bannon did. 

That's a pretty bizarre conclusion given that he might say anything.

[Alex_Krycek]

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I hope you were able to explain things to him.

I've tried.  I've explained that those on the left want greater opportunity for the working class too.

It's difficult when someone isn't interested in hearing another viewpoint. 

Also, this guy has violent tendencies which I try to circumnavigate.  He once told a colleague of mine that he tracked down someone on Facebook whom he got into a political argument with and challenged him to a fight.  I'd prefer not to be in the line of fire if he ends up going postal. 

Best I can do is be the non-threatening liberal whom he trusts to talk politics.  That way I can subtly influence him over a longer period of time without direct confrontation.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That's a pretty bizarre conclusion given that he might say anything.

By accepted I meant believed at face value. Trump has a well established history of stacking his lies on top of other lies. 

[Alex_Krycek]

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Steve Bannon is not trying to combat illegal immigration. Steve Bannon is combating legal and controlled immigration. 

I think he opposes illegal immigration and certain aspects of legal immigration, which he thinks are too liberal, such as chain immigration. 

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

We can discuss the pro and cons of it but please to do not mis-characterize it. No one is pro illegal, unchecked, or mass immigration. 

Certain groups are, such as Reconquista and the Nationalist Front of Mexico who want to retake the lands lost by Mexico in the Mexican - American war of 1846.

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Can you name one ANTIFA leader or one Politician in office who supports ANTIFA? 

No, because they operate as an anonymous mob.  They can't put down their bongs long enough to muster a coherent strategy or run for political office.  They'd rather just break things and assault people who don't agree with them instead.  Just because they're not mainstream doesn't mean they're not dangerous. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I think he opposes illegal immigration and certain aspects of legal immigration, which he thinks are too liberal, such as chain immigration.

If you read up on the history of Chain migration you see that the U.S. has been operating on the quota based enforcement Policy which favors European immigrants, see the Chinese Exclusion Act, since the Immigration Act of 1924 became law. Prior to the 1924 borders had been virtually open. Chain Immigration as both a process and the laws which enable far pre-date the modern political climate. As such it is inaccurate to label it "too liberal". Steve Bannon is entitle to his opinion and can seek to overhaul policies that have stood for a century but is is disingenuous to pretend the laws are liberal or that the situation is different today. Immigration has not increased. Immigrants as a percentage of the population are no greater today than in the a hundred years ago Link.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Certain groups are, such as Reconquista and the Nationalist Front of Mexico who want to retake the lands lost by Mexico in the Mexican - American war of 1846

I thought we were discussing the countries Steve Bannon campaigns for Politicians in.No elected officials in the U.S., UK, France, or Italy supports that group? They are superfluous to this conversation. 

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

No, because they operate as an anonymous mob.  They can't put down their bongs long enough to muster a coherent strategy or run for political office.  They'd rather just break things and assault people who don't agree with them instead.  Just because they're not mainstream doesn't mean they're not dangerous

Right, you can't name a single ANTIFA leader and you can't name any Politicians (Democrat or Republican) who supports them. They are in no way an equivalent to the Alt-Right. I wouldn't care is every member of ANTIFA out doing whatever it is they do were arrested and charged with disturbing the peace. No Democrats would come to their defense. ANTIFA is irrelevant to this conversation. Republicans support the Alt-Right and vice versa. Democrats do not support ANTIFA and since no one even knows who ANTIFA members are their is no way to know what ANTIFA supports. 

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

More my point of interest was the potential for emergence of a moderate centrist party. Something I would like to see if the two current ones remain polarized. 

That's interesting.

From the point of view of most of the world, that would mean taking a standpoint between "Right wing" and "very Right wing"  and labeling it as "Centre".
I can see why Bannon would like that.

[J.C.MacSwell]

34 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's interesting.

From the point of view of most of the world, that would mean taking a standpoint between "Right wing" and "very Right wing"  and labeling it as "Centre".
I can see why Bannon would like that.

All "relative". Left and right are on a Kaluza Klein extra dimension...if you get far enough Left, you are on the extreme right.

[Alex_Krycek]

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If you read up on the history of Chain migration you see that the U.S. has been operating on the quota based enforcement Policy which favors European immigrants, see the Chinese Exclusion Act, since the Immigration Act of 1924 became law. Prior to the 1924 borders had been virtually open. Chain Immigration as both a process and the laws which enable far pre-date the modern political climate. As such it is inaccurate to label it "too liberal". Steve Bannon is entitle to his opinion and can seek to overhaul policies that have stood for a century but is is disingenuous to pretend the laws are liberal or that the situation is different today. Immigration has not increased. Immigrants as a percentage of the population are no greater today than in the a hundred years ago Link.

Perhaps, but his opposition to legal immigration isn't happening in a vacuum.  The downturn in the economy for working class people is the primary catalyst.  You can argue against changing immigration policy but ultimately it will have to be settled at the ballot box. 

Quote

I thought we were discussing the countries Steve Bannon campaigns for Politicians in.No elected officials in the U.S., UK, France, or Italy supports that group? They are superfluous to this conversation. 

Not really.  When considering the current polarized political climate you have to understand all the factions at work, on both the right and the left.  You keep wanting to deny the existence of fringe groups on the left, because it contradicts your narrative perhaps?

Quote

Right, you can't name a single ANTIFA leader and you can't name any Politicians (Democrat or Republican) who supports them. They are in no way an equivalent to the Alt-Right. I wouldn't care is every member of ANTIFA out doing whatever it is they do were arrested and charged with disturbing the peace. No Democrats would come to their defense. ANTIFA is irrelevant to this conversation. Republicans support the Alt-Right and vice versa. Democrats do not support ANTIFA and since no one even knows who ANTIFA members are their is no way to know what ANTIFA supports. 

No, because again they operate as a violent mob, not a rational political organization with constructive policy a leadership hierarchy.  At the grassroots level they are highly active.  Elected Democrats prefer to tacitly accept them, choosing not to condemn their actions:

Conservatives see the danger to the republic, but so do a few liberals who have been bold enough to warn against the hard, violent left. Alan Dershowitz, the former Harvard Law professor, is one.

"Do not let the hard left, the radicals, represent the Democratic Party," Dershowitz warned recently. "There is an alt-left and we cannot deny it. The alt-left are radical people who want to deny us free speech, who want to close the campus to conversation, who want to stop people from having dialogue, who want to use violence…

"Antifa is not our friend. They will not help us win elections. ... I do not want to give a pass to the hard radical left, which is destroying America, destroying American universities, destroying the Democratic Party," Dershowitz said.     Aticle Here

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Alex_Krycek