Outrage Grows Over Stephen Bannon, as Donald Trump Reaches Out to the World

pretty sure you you can't find a single person saying that...good luck trying though.

Saying they're more violent is saying they're more violent, nothing more nothing less. Stop pretending I said something I didn't.

I don't deflect like you.

How about the absurd amount of rioting from the left? From rioting of a police shooting to rioting over election results, you don't see that to near the same extent on the right. If what the left claims is true about the right, there would've been massive rioting and protests after the 08 and 12 elections...but, there weren't.

Look at the violent crime stats....democrats commit them at a much higher rate. The numbers have been posted over and over again.

What on earth makes you think the right is as violent as the left? I see no way a reasonable person could come to this conclusion.

 

Indeed. Neo-nazis, ku klux klan, and other white supremacists may yet have their hopes crushed and enthusiasm dashed if Trump and Bannon fail to further their ideological agenda.

We can't know if their allegiance will be betrayed until that is shown by actual governance. Some the the more absurd campaign rhetoric - such as instituting religious discrimination as a test for entering the US - is consummate poopdoodle, of course.

 

Sure they have. The derangement syndrome continues.

- - - Updated - - -

The video record from Project Veritas.

 

He wasn't a Grand Wizard, he was an Exalted Cyclops. He was a recruiter and leader of his local chapter:

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[SUP][19][/SUP] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[SUP][13][/SUP] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[SUP][13]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd[/SUP]

 

I can relate to Trump though. If it was me and people demanded I remove Bannon, I'd just flip them off and then appoint someone to the right of Bannon as well, just for laughs.

 

And you don't see how that is a claim of moral superiority? Really?

How is it a deflection to respond to the claim that the left is uniquely violent with evidence to the contrary?

Acknowledged and condemned.

And if rioting were the only form of violence, you'd have an excellent point. It isn't.

Libertarian here, not left.

Again, you are pretending that rioting is the only form of violence.

No, they really haven't.

The violence on the right.

Then why do you have to shift goal posts in order to make that point?

 

Of course there is no religious discrimination, per se,
for entering the U.S.under the Trump administration, but since when has the left ever been honest or had scruples about lying about the issue?
That's a rhetorical question...they never have.

Terrorism has been the reason for proposing extreme vetting and not just opening up our immigration system to anyone from the Middle East at all (where terrorism flourishes)l. Not Islam itself!

The voters of this nation have judged the sort of rhetoric the left tossed around in the election and found it wanting and disingenuous. Did you get the memo?

 

John Martin Roos,
Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright, Patrick Eugene Stein and William "I'll follow Trump to the ends of the earth" Celli. Being able to count to five isn't a derangement.

- - - Updated - - -

His original plan involved religious discrimination, per se. It was only later that he backpedaled and changed the focus to country of origin instead of religion.

 

Except it shouldnt because the nazis were left wing.

 

So I did some research into breitbart and this guy. Breitbart seems to have a very pro Israel slant to it. Which is sort of the opposite of anti antisemitism. And the guy that Bannon tapped to replace himself is in fact Jewish. So if this guy hates Jews so much why did he post so many pro Israeli articles and why did he bring in a Jew to replace him at Breitbart. Does any of that make sense? About the only antisemitic thing i can find about him is that his wife claims that he didn't want their kids to go to a certain school because of how many Jewish people were there. Also wasn't the guy who founded Breitbart also a Jew? I mean this whole antisemitism bit seems like a whole lot of nonsense to me. Now if you wanna say the guy is kind of an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and fanatical right wing, I wouldn't argue that. But i think we can safely say that the regressive left is once again crying wolf "Racist" when there is none actually there.

 

Brietbart has an Israel Bureau, headed by Aaron Klein, which Klein says wouldn't have been possible without Bannon.

 

Nor will there be, despite the campaign's BS nativist hyperbole.

Of course, it's unAmerican and, quite likely, unconstitutional.

It'll be fun to watch how much of the touted radical agenda is abandoned.

 

Interesting how forum right wingers are still under the illusion that only libs are criticizing Trump. In fact he has gotten more criticism from the right. Anyone can see that from the many links posted here.

 

Would you be discriminating against Germans, per se, if you instituted a policy after WWII that restricted German immigration based on solid vetting
practices? Or would you necessarily be forced to treat the nation that produced Nazis differently than all others when taking in new citizens?

 

Trickle-down racism

 

Not today:








KKK, American Nazi Party praise Trump's hiring of Bannon


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...can-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon



No surprise.

 

Are you suggesting that Leftists have ever held any belief other than this?

These kids grew up being programmed to think America, more to the point, White successful America is the root of all evil in the world.

Somebody stands up and says that's not true and suddenly they're a "White nationalist".

So the question isn't "did they miss that?" the question is "why are they still living in America if its so bad?".

Oh and side note, the opinions of the SPLC for "facts" belong in the garbage with the rest of the trash.

The SPLC has been formally and officially outed for its own racism, absolute bias, and complete inability to accurately recognize or report on racism.

 

Remaking my statements using partial quotations
and other bits cobbled in is against forum rules and utterly dishonest.
You've already lost!

The people who were kicked out of power would have us believe that
it's "American" to throw open our doors and allow everybody and anybody in, no matter how dangerous and malevolent they might be.
That, of course, is a lie and thinly disguised b.s.
Muslim immigration was and will be restricted only to the degree that people can be determined not to be terrorist sympathizers and actors.

Statements to the contrary will be understood to be propaganda designed to further a dangerous political agenda.

I will be interested to see myself.

 

O'Keefe is a convicted criminal with zero credibility and does not qualify as a nonpartisan source.

Thank you for discrediting your own bogus allegation.

Have a nice day!

 

I have no problem with vetting. Never have. I only had a problem with the blanket shutdown based on nothing more than religion.

 

That's a sensible practical view and I believe any sensible and practical person would have to agree with you. I certainly do.

 

A person's morals encompasses much more. Stop interpreting me incorrectly just to attempt to make a point.

You're fixing to start deflecting left and right....wait for it.

You asked for evidence so I gave it. I don't care whether you've commented on it or not.

Once again, you asked for evidence.

and here's the deflecting...

No I'm not. I didn't say that nor did I imply it. It's not humanly possible for me to list all the types of violence. Listing some or one is not me believing or implying that there aren't others.

They have and you know it. More deflecting.

"as violent as"

Does that phrase confuse you?

I shifted nothing.

The crux of my argument is a simple question. Given ALL violence in this country, how can any objective, reasonable person, claim that the political right is more violent, or even as violent, than the political left?

You've made claims and provided absolutely nothing to back those claims up.

Do you actually have anything to support what you've said? If not we're done here.

 

And the crux of my argument is a simple question. Given ALL violence in this country, how can any objective, reasonable person claim that either the left or the right is more violent? Even exploring that would require looking at both sides, and since you consider any examination of the right a deflection, and since you only want to look at riots and not any other form of violence, you obviously you have no interest in an objective consideration. Since you refuse to do anything but presuppose that your conclusion is true, we were obviously "done" before we even started.

 

I look forward to the media and Democrats pretending to care about government transparency and accountability for the next four to eight years.

 

LOL

"examine the right"

You've provided NOTHING. There has been no examination....at all.

And if you're incapable of seeing that I merely mentioned riots and NEVER implied that was the only form of violence, then how can I expect you to correctly interpret much of anything at all. Hell, you couldn't even interpret the phrase "as violent as" correctly.

Keep on saying you're libertarian if it makes you feel better.

I guess you actually providing any evidence whatsoever to support your position was never going to happen. I won't make the mistake of asking again, lefties tend to run and hide when asked to justify their positions.