Off Topic Politics Thread

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

So your theory is that 35% of the American population (presumably mainly whites so, what, half the white population of America?) is not just racist but SO racist they don't care about anything - even Russian interference in the Presidential election! - except kicking out foreigners and non-whites? That's a pretty wild claim.

Not for anyone who has been paying attention.

There's also the fact that if Bannon is the mastermind we're supposed to believe he is then he must know the US isn't like Game of Thrones (or Nazi Germany for that matter). The whole system of government is set up to stop a crazy or incompetent leader from doing too much damage.

Which is why exactly why Bannon wants to take down the system.

And no, Bannon is not a mastermind. He's just the guy who for now is pulling the strings and trying to keep it that way. Kushner/Ivanka could stop him if they tried. Christie and Guiliani were once in Bannon's shoes. Priebus would like to be. It's a precarious position.

 

[Schad]

So your theory is that 35% of the American population (presumably mainly whites so, what, half the white population of America?) is not just racist but SO racist they don't care about anything - even Russian interference in the Presidential election! - except kicking out foreigners and non-whites? That's a pretty wild claim.

I'd reframe that: 35% of the American population is racist enough to believe that racially-charged political appeals will be beneficial to themselves and America. There is a difference there: if you believe, implicitly or explicitly, that America is being undermined by hordes who are flooding the country to steal your jobs, or siphon off most of the budget for welfare*, or overrun the country with criminality you will elevate those problems above just about everything else, because they will feel like existential issues. This is particularly true if you have a politician who is strongly endorsing your (generally fallacious) opinion of the country; after years of being told they were wrong because, like, all empirical data demonstrates such, they have a leader who tells them they were right all along. That's not something one turns their back on quickly.


*If you want to get a good sense of how America's race problem plays out, I would seriously recommend looking at studies where they ask participants to estimate the budgetary impact of some programs, and the demographic breakdown of recipients. It's eye-opening, and heavily correlated with political preferences...people on the right vastly overestimate welfare spending and the percentage of that money that goes to minorities, in part because politicians on the right have successfully race-coded those programs. The same happened with Obamacare; there have been a lot of articles about Trump supporters who are only now realizing that the program that they spent years demonizing (and which Trump wants to tear up) is the very same they got their health care through, because the right launched a very successful campaign to race-code Obamacare as a handout to Democratic minority constituencies. Support in blood-red Kentucky for Kynect was very high, while the governor was elected in large part owing to his promise to kill Obamacare...Kynect WAS Obamacare.

 

[Puck]

Not for anyone who has been paying attention.



Which is why exactly why Bannon wants to take down the system.

And no, Bannon is not a mastermind. He's just the guy who for now is pulling the strings and trying to keep it that way. Kushner/Ivanka could stop him if they tried. Christie and Guiliani were once in Bannon's shoes. Priebus would like to be. It's a precarious position.

The way to remain in a privileged position within the Trump administration is not to undermine that administration and cause chaos within it. If we accept what you say about Bannon then the Trump administration is his tool, his chance to take down the system. To do that he will either have to work within the system that already exists and convince that system to destroy itself and give power to Trump (similar to what Hitler and Mussolini did) or violently overthrow the government (as Lenin did, with a certain amount of foreign aid). I don't think he has access to the sort of military power that would be needed for a violent revolution and the way to convince the current system to destroy itself and give Trump power is not to present Trump as incompetent.

 

[Beef]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

The way to remain in a privileged position within the Trump administration is not to undermine that administration and cause chaos within it. If we accept what you say about Bannon then the Trump administration is his tool, his chance to take down the system. To do that he will either have to work within the system that already exists and convince that system to destroy itself and give power to Trump (similar to what Hitler and Mussolini did) or violently overthrow the government (as Lenin did, with a certain amount of foreign aid). I don't think he has access to the sort of military power that would be needed for a violent revolution and the way to convince the current system to destroy itself and give Trump power is not to present Trump as incompetent.

The majority of the US population believes Trump is incompetent. His approval ratings are miserable. But for Trump supporters, it just reinforces their belief that everyone is biased. Just look at what is happening. Trump's NSA chief was caught talking to the Russians. But they are turning this around to say that the intelligence community are traitors, and the press is the enemy. So with no NSA chief, who is actually running the NSA now? It's Bannon.

 

[Puck]

The majority of the US population believes Trump is incompetent. His approval ratings are miserable. But for Trump supporters, it just reinforces their belief that everyone is biased. Just look at what is happening. Trump's NSA chief was caught talking to the Russians. But they are turning this around to say that the intelligence community are traitors, and the press is the enemy. So with no NSA chief, who is actually running the NSA now? It's Bannon.

You may be right (although approval ratings aren't just about competence) although at least some of that is down to the disorganised way Trump's government has worked so far.

Either way, being popular with Trump's supporters doesn't help pass legislation or make changes. If Trump (or Bannon or anyone else) wants to get anything of any significance done, if they want to make any significant changes, they will have to work with Congress, work with government agencies, work with the people within the system. It is in their interests to make their government appear as capable as possible to those people, it is in their interests NOT to make stupid mistakes and look totally disorganised. The Republicans in Congress will obviously help Trump do things they completely agree with and perceive to have widespread appeal (Obamacare repeal, tax cuts) but aren't going to work with him on much else if they think his people are utterly clueless and unable to organise a piss-up in a brewery.

I think you're wrong about the NSA. Flynn was Trump's National Security Advisor, not chief of the NSA. The chief of the NSA is Admiral Michael Rogers and the NSA ultimately sits under Mad Dog Mattis's control. The acting National Security Advisor is Keith Kellogg.

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Dude. It's Bannon.

The titles don't matter. That's why Harward didn't want the job.

Here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...non-to-be-right-hand-man-on-national-security
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/robert-harward-national-security-adviser-trump-balks-235120
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...shakeup-steve-bannon-gets-a-seat-at-the-table

 

[TheSecondStain]

Trump says Sweden has had a terror attack [yeah, that'll be the day]. Completely faked news. Who stops the faker, when he is the most powerful man in the world.?
Sweden has asked for an explanation of the fabrication.

 

[Puck]

Dude. It's Bannon.

The titles don't matter. That's why Harward didn't want the job.

Here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...non-to-be-right-hand-man-on-national-security
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/robert-harward-national-security-adviser-trump-balks-235120
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...shakeup-steve-bannon-gets-a-seat-at-the-table

Harward was offered the job of National Security Adviser. The National Security Adviser does not run the NSA. He chairs the National Security Council, of which Bannon is a member. The National Security Council doesn't run the NSA either. There is nothing in those articles that suggests Bannon is running the NSA. Yes, Bannon is on the National Security Council. That happened well before Flynn's resignation (around the time of the travel ban) and not as a result of Flynn's resignation. The National Security Council advises the President on security matters and forms policy in that area. Harward may well have been concerned about Bannon's attitude and influence but that doesn't mean Bannon is running the NSA. On top of that, at cabinet level the person who 'runs' the NSA is Mattis who has shown he's not just going to toe the party line all the time. I very much doubt he would allow Bannon just to step in and run one of his departments.

This has made me think, and I would say that if the media really wants to get rid of Bannon they should get Saturday Night Live to run skits with Trump as Bannon's puppet or sitting in his pocket, something along the same lines as what Spitting Image did with David Owen and David Steel. It would drive Trump mad.

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

I actually don't dislike Mattis, but you are expecting the guy who is not even eligible for the position to serve as an independent check? The very fact that he is Secretary of Defense is already a breach of checks and balances.

And yes, of course Bannon was installed before Flynn got fired. That's exactly what made him expendable. Trump knew all about the calls to Russia weeks before Flynn was fired. And again, that's why Harward didn't want the job. Because he knew it was BS and he would have no real autonomy or say in things.

Also.. have you watched SNL at all? Bannon is portrayed by a guy in a grim reaper costume manipulating Trump so I have no idea what you are even talking about there/

 

[Beef]

Milo Yiannopoulous, noted bigot, transphobe and general ****face, just can't seem to stop defending ****philia.

Here's Milo passionately defending adult men who enter into sexual relationships with teenage boys in order to give them "real love" and help them "discover who they are."

https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Here's Milo, again on the defensive, detailing his time with a man who frequently kept underage boys around to take drugs and be sexually abused.

You must log in or register to see media

(at the 5:18 mark)

 

[Whiteley Saint]

Trump says Sweden has had a terror attack [yeah, that'll be the day]. Completely faked news. Who stops the faker, when he is the most powerful man in the world.?
Sweden has asked for an explanation of the fabrication.

http://news.sky.com/story/the-curious-case-of-president-trump-and-the-swedish-incident-10774330

Apparently he saw it on Fox news! Love the Swedish Foreign Ministers reaction - "Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound".

 

[TheSecondStain]

http://news.sky.com/story/the-curious-case-of-president-trump-and-the-swedish-incident-10774330

Apparently he saw it on Fox News! Love the Swedish Foreign Ministers reaction - "Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound".

Just another little bit of evidence, and hence my contention that, Fox News, CEO'd by Rupert Murdoch, is the single major news broadcaster which fabricates fake news. But I'll cut Fox News a little slack here [goodness knows why I should] and suggest that Trump dreamed it.

Nice move from the Swedish FM.

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Milo Yiannopoulous, noted bigot, transphobe and general ****face, just can't seem to stop defending ****philia.

Here's Milo passionately defending adult men who enter into sexual relationships with teenage boys in order to give them "real love" and help them "discover who they are."

https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Here's Milo, again on the defensive, detailing his time with a man who frequently kept underage boys around to take drugs and be sexually abused.

You must log in or register to see media

(at the 5:18 mark)

The thing with Milo is that he's a fairly clever guy, and can easily put on a good face and laugh off his statements as simply provoking the left or a playing impish sort of devil's advocate/gadfly. But anyone who hears him over time can see how fake that is. He's happy to stereotype the left, or anyone who disagrees with him while feigning indignation that he is a white supremicist/bigot with "I'm gay! Look at me! I love black dudes. You can't put me in a box!" I think that no one tries to get as much mileage and free passes out of being gay than Milo himself.

FTR, I don't think that Milo truly believes some of the things he says, but I don't really care. At some point I feel it is no longer worthwhile to try and distinguish between "white supremacist," "white supremacist sympathizer, "dude who just makes white supremacist statements for attention," or "dude who makes justifies his white supremacist views by pointing out he is in fact an asshole to everyone and stereotypes them equally when it suits him." Milo is at least one, and probably more of those things, so **** him.

 

[Beef]

The thing with Milo is that he's a fairly clever guy, and can easily put on a good face and laugh off his statements as simply provoking the left or a playing impish sort of devil's advocate/gadfly. But anyone who hears him over time can see how fake that is. He's happy to stereotype the left, or anyone who disagrees with him while feigning indignation that he is a white supremicist/bigot with "I'm gay! Look at me! I love black dudes. You can't put me in a box!" I think that no one tries to get as much mileage and free passes out of being gay than Milo himself.

FTR, I don't think that Milo truly believes some of the things he says, but I don't really care. At some point I feel it is no longer worthwhile to try and distinguish between "white supremacist," "white supremacist sympathizer, "dude who just makes white supremacist statements for attention," or "dude who makes justifies his white supremacist views by pointing out he is in fact an asshole to everyone and stereotypes them equally when it suits him." Milo is at least one, and probably more of those things, so **** him.

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Beef]

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

We'll see. Getting dropped from CPAC and/or losing a book deal probably wouldn't hurt him. He can just point at more intolerance from the left/main stream.

But if Breitbart drops him, he could be in trouble. And I could see how they might, I feel like it is 50/50. But I have ZERO doubt that if he had made similar sort of "coming of age" comments about a female teacher and a young boy that Breitbart would be backing him all the way. So in a strange way, he is being "discriminated" against because he is gay. For which I feel zero sympathy. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. He finally offended his core audience. It was bound to happen. He had to keep getting more and more outrageous, or people would get tired of his schtick.

I always thought that if Milo, or Gavin McInnes, or I suppose Rod Liddle or any of that ilk were truly the ace provocateurs they fancy themselves as, they'd do a surprise heel turn on their core audience and suddenly start saying the same stuff about white, male, conservatives and see how tolerant they are, and if they can take a "joke." But they never have the balls. Milo just misread his core audience is all. And Joe Rogan can be a pretty slick interviewer, good at sort of staying calm with mild disagreement in a way that eggs people on. He did the same with Stefan Molyneux a while back.

 

[ImpSaint]

I had stated that Labour would hold on to the Stoke seat (formerly held by Tristram Hunt) with a much reduced margin (7,000 reduced to 2,000 or so) with the Tories and UKIP splitting the gain from Labour however, it is looking increasingly likely that UKIP and Paul Nuttall are going to win the seat!!

Yesterday's poll had UKIP on 39% and Labour on 33%. Even with Michael Crick chasing the "home address" issue I would expect that should Nuttall win it will be a slap on the wrist and at worst the election will be run again and the result could be greater because of course it will play into the "trying any tactics to stop UKIP" argument.

Surprises me because I didn't think UKIP would be able to pull all the votes from Labour without the Tories gaining any.

Should have trusted my original assessment on Stoke. Was pretty close to my original prediction.

And called the Conservatives winning Copeland as well.

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Is it really more that UKIP and Conservative split the non-Labour vote... or is it really more like Labour and UKIP split the non-Conservative vote?

Genuine question. I'm seeing pundits giving both viewpoints over here.

 

[ImpSaint]

Is it really more that UKIP and Conservative split the non-Labour vote... or is it really more like Labour and UKIP split the non-Conservative vote?

Genuine question. I'm seeing pundits giving both viewpoints over here.

The Tories increased by 1% so they held their vote in an area that is a strong Labour seat. Labour lost 2% so their majority was reduced. Lib Dems recovering the votes they lost in 2015 and UKIP up by 2%.

So it is the former. The reality is that only a couple of percent changed at the top. Lib Dems retrieved votes from an independent that won them last time.

UKIP are in trouble now because the Tories are the ones gaining voteshare in Copeland at UKIP's expense and Theresa May put a bit more effort into Stoke last week to make sure UKIP didn't pull any Tory votes there.