The Alt-Right Is Using Trump and Cucks too

[subhub174014]

Trump Told White Supremacists to Attack Protesters, So They Did
Harriet Sinclair,Newsweek 13 hours ago .

President Donald Trump’s comments on dealing with protesters are coming back to haunt him after the violence that broke out Saturday at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The clashes between Nazis and counterprotesters left three people dead, including one anti-fascist demonstrator who was killed when a man rammed his car into the group she was with.

The president, whose initial statement about the rally was criticized for failing to mention racism, now finds comments he made about attacking protesters being revisited. Throughout his election campaign, Trump appeared to encourage violence toward anti-Trump protesters who showed up at his rallies, telling crowds of people that protesters should be escorted out more roughly, and offering to pay the legal fees of any of his fans who attacked them.

"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise," Trump said at an Iowa rally on February 1, 2016.

At another event, Trump suggested police should be more violent with people they removed from his rallies. “You see, in the good old days, law enforcement acted a lot quicker than this,” Trump said at a rally in Oklahoma City, The New York Times reported, as security moved toward a protester.

“A lot quicker. In the good old days, they’d rip him out of that seat so fast. But today everyone is so politically correct. Our country is going to hell—we’re being politically correct,” he added.

His comments are now being recalled in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, with Democratic U.S. Representative Maxine Walters tweeting on Monday: “Don't forget, Trump offered to pay legal fees for those who attacked protesters at his rallies. Will he be making that same offer now?”

She added: “Trump defined himself during campaign. He encouraged violence against protesters at rallies. We should not be surprised. ‪#Charlottesviille”

In a tweet from Vets Against Trump, the group referenced Republican legislation that protects drivers who run over protesters in their car. The so-called common-sense legislation protects drivers “exercising due care” if they hit someone who is protesting and blocking traffic from civil liability; it does not, however, apply to a person who intentionally runs into someone.


“After ‪#Charlottesville, remember that GOP lawmakers across the country have introduced bills to legalize hitting protesters with cars,” Vets Against Trump said.

Trump finally denounced the KKK supporters who gathered in Virginia Saturday after nearly three days of officials on the right and left asking him to do so. “Racism is evil,” Trump said Monday. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

 

[subhub174014]

Fox News Host Dismisses Racism as a Problem, Immediately Says Something Racist
Esquire 14 hours ago .

Eventually, Fox News had to dissolve into self-parody. The network has peddled white resentment for years. It has conjured up demons from the dark imagination of Roger Ailes: Other People who are invading from the outside or mooching off of Good, Hardworking Americans within. They were demons for White America to fear, and to hate, and eventually, to lash out against. This was always going to end in two ways: the empowerment of the most extreme believers in this mass delusion, and in Fox—or at least the dumbest people they put on air—drowning in their own pool of toxic nonsense. Enter Jesse Watters, Bill O'Reilly's enduring gift to American political discourse. On Sunday, the day after hundreds ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/e75cc491-01be-3ceb-865c-f76720a731be/ss_fox-news-host-dismisses.html

 

[subhub174014]

Fox News Host Compares Charlottesville White Supremacists To Black Lives Matter
Lydia O'Connor,HuffPost Sun, Aug 13 11:16 AM PDT .

The morning after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, left one counter-protester dead, a Fox News host came to the rally attendees’ defense and compared them to the Black Lives Matter movement against police *******.

On Sunday’s episode of Fox & Friends, co-host Pete Hegseth defended President Donald Trump’s statements on the deadly rally, which many condemned for not singling out the white supremacists and instead laying blame for the violence on “many sides.”

Hegseth, however, said Sunday that Trump “nailed it” and applauded him for condemning “hatred and bigotry on all sides as opposed to immediately picking a side out the gate.”

He then suggested the grievances of those attending the Charlottesville rally ― which included activists from the so-called “alt-right,” Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members and other white supremacists ― deserve the same sympathy and support offered to the Black Lives Matter movement, which was created to put a spotlight on police shootings of black Americans.

“You can call [violence] out, and then ― but still also listen, say, on Black Lives Matter, to the grievances of young African-American males in urban cores who feel like they are looked at differently by police. That discussion still should be had,” Hegseth said, arguing that many young white men “feel like, ‘Hey, I’m treated differently in this country than I feel like I should have. I’ve become a second-class citizen. None of it ― they tell me I have white privilege.’”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-host-compares-charlottesville-181605219.html

 

[subhub174014]

Fox News Host Harris Faulkner: Trump Critics ‘Not on Our Side as Americans’
Matt Wilstein,The Daily Beast Sun, Aug 13 10:50 PM PDT .

Two days after President Donald Trump condemned “hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides”—he repeated those words, “on many sides”—following white-nationalist violence in Charlottesville, Va., he finally came out on Monday and said he was including “the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” It was more than good enough for Fox News. “That was a very strong speech,” Outnumbered co-host Sandra Smith said immediately following the president’s remarks. “Very strong and very good,” Breitbart and Fox contributor Charles Hurt added, hoping that this could be the “last word” on the subject of Trump’s position on race-based ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/0d143100-e857-310e-89fd-bc8f99f760ee/fox-news-host-harris.html

 

[subhub174014]

Fox News Host Realizes on Air That He's a Big, Dumb Hypocrite
GQ 16 hours ago .

Jesse Watters, the junior varsity Fox News host behind that memorable Chinatown segment last year that made fun of Asian people in the most racist terms imaginable, had an interesting monologue to open his show this weekend. "What we saw in Charlottesville were fringe fanatics who do not represent this country," he said, referring to the violent clashes incited by white supremacists that led to the ******* of one woman. "America is not a racist nation"—and here you can practically feel the doubt begin to creep into his delivery—"it's time we stop acting like it is." ...

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/m/9...ba5ac76/ss_fox-news-host-realizes-on-air.html

 

[subhub174014]

 

[BigBlackBull76]

His comments during a press conference on August 15 in which he spontaneously reiterated his support for white supremacist protesters left the world slack-jawed in disbelief and ****** a stark moral choice upon senior officials in his administration: vigorously denounce the heinous views of the man they serve, resign in protest, or be forever linked to America’s first Nazi-supporting president.


By now, the facts of the current crisis are clear. On Friday, Aug. 11, torch-bearing white supremacists led by “Alt-Right” provocateur Richard Spencer marched through the campus of the University of Virginia, shouting slogans such as the Nazi-era rallying cry, “******* and Soil!” and “Jews will not replace us!” On Saturday, Aug. 12, white supremacists bearing Nazi and Confederate battle flags massed in Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park. They were flanked by self-styled militia carrying assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols. A mixture of counter-protesters met them. Some were peaceful clergy members and students. Others were so-called “antifa” cadres, who exchanged insults with the white nationalists.


By late morning, there were growing skirmishes between the white supremacist marchers and the counter-protestors. The worst of the violence happened at 1:14pm, when a 20 year-old Neo-Nazi named James Alex Fields Jr. of Maumee, Ohio, deliberately drove his Dodge Challenger through a group of counter-protestors, injuring 19 and killing 32 year-old Heather Heyer of Charlottesville. The day’s death toll grew further when a Virginia State Police helicopter monitoring the violence crashed, killing state troopers Lt. H. Jay Cullen, 48, and Berke M.M. Bates, 40.


President Trump’s response to the carnage in Charlottesville in the following days devolved from being merely shocking to positively revolting. In his initial public comments delivered during a press conference, he denounced the “hatred, bigotry and violence” that resulted in the death of one person and attributed it to “many sides.” He pointedly failed to condemn white supremacists in general or the murderous James Fields in particular — a fact that was celebrated for its “courage” by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke.

David Duke Gerald Herbert/AP Photo


The White House tried to control the bipartisan firestorm created by the president’s equivalence of Neo-Nazi White Supremacists with those protesting their message of racial hatred. On Monday, Aug. 14, he delivered highly scripted remarks from the White House in which he declared that “racism is evil” and “those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” Yet the next day, like a man who just cannot help himself, in more spontaneous remarks delivered at Trump Tower, the president reiterated the assertion he made two days earlier that there was “blame on both sides” and that among some of the Neo-Nazi protesters “were some very fine people.”


In essence, Trump definitively showed the world who he is. And we should believe him.


As a former U.S. ambassador and senior State Department official, I know that there is a particular obligation by political appointees not only to represent the interests of the American people but also to ensure that the policies and perspectives of the elected government of the day are implemented. In this sense, the role of such officials is qualitatively different from the dedicated career civilian officials across the government and from the uniformed personnel in our Armed Forces, who are expected to be studiously apolitical in the execution of their duties.

White nationalists carry torches on the grounds of the University of Virginia, on the eve of a planned Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville Thomson Reuters


The unprecedented situation that we currently face, however, is that the elected government of the day is now led by a Nazi- and white-nationalist sympathizer. Unlike the unfortunate former White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, there is no way for senior Trump political appointees to evade this grim reality by hiding in the bushes to escape the moral weight of the choice that confronts them.


To their great credit, all four chiefs of the U.S. Armed Forces have explicitly issued comments via Twitter in recent days categorically denouncing racismand reaffirming the commitment of their respective organizations to values of respecting the fundamental equality and human dignity of all who serve. Yet such declarative statements loose their power when they are contradicted and undermined by the visceral racist utterances of the commander-in-chief.


While the uniformed military and civilian leaders in government must pull their punches when critiquing the chief executive, no such moral deus ex machina exists for political appointees, including Cabinet officers, ambassadors, assistant secretaries, and all such others who willingly joined the Trump administration to serve at the pleasure of the president.


Either you challenge the president’s blatant racism, or you acquiesce to his repugnant views to the detriment of your credibility with those you lead and to your own sense of personal honor.


For those who occupy the highest offices of the land, I must reluctantly pose some difficult questions.


How, Chief of Staff John Kelly, can the parents of two African-American 82nd Airborne paratroopers killed in Iraq the day after the carnage in Charlottesville be assured that the deaths of their sons mean as much to the president as the tragic and heroic death of your own ******* in combat — when Trump defiantly and repeatedly equates white supremacists with those brave enough to confront their vile hatred?


How, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, can you convince the men and women serving in the greatest military the world has ever known, and who comprise virtually every creed and color of our great nation, that racism will not be tolerated in the ranks if you do not publicly and powerfully challenge the blatant racism of their commander-in-chief?

McMaster speaks to reporters in the White House briefing room in Washington Thomson Reuters


How, Gen. H.R. McMaster, can you convince the American people that you are using your position as national security advisor to protect them from the threat of terrorism abroad if the president you serve refuses to call the white supremacists the terrorists they are, rather than insisting that there must be some “very good people” among them?


How, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, can you convince the world that American values are a ******* for good in the world, and convince your own workforce who hail from every corner of our country to confidently project America’s image in the world, if you fail to publicly challenge a president who embraces the latter-day Nazi spawn of the greatest evil the world has ever seen?


How, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, can you have a shred of dignity when you look in the eye of your Senate colleagues (and the constituents they represent), who confirmed you for your post with the benefit of the doubt against decades-old charges of racial bias levied against you if you do not seize this moment to specifically and directly condemn the racism of the man who heads our government?


And how, gentlemen, can you continue to rationalize serving a man who so consistently tramples on the most basic values of our country that each of you, in your own way, has spent a lifetime serving?


At what point does your duty to country lead you to confront the evil bigotry of the president, rather than trying to find a way to rationalize it so you are free to serve some greater good?


As much as each of these questions apply to you, they apply in equal measure to all of your deputies and subordinates that also occupy political positions of great responsibility in the service of our country.


History sometimes presents us with unpalatable choices whose consequences forever mark our character as individuals and define our destiny as a nation. Without question, now is such a time. In light of the president’s exposed racist character, only three choices remain:

1. Condemn the president’s words directly and categorically, and risk the professional wrath of a man who prides loyalty to himself above all other virtues.
2. Resign in protest, thereby refusing to abet the unreconstructed racist in the Oval Office but preserving your own personal honor.
3. Continue to serve this fundamentally flawed man, and have to explain to your personal progeny and our national posterity why you chose to silently serve America’s first Nazi-in-chief.

The choices are clear, and they are yours to make. And so I ask, what will you choose?


This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Insider.

Read the original article on Foreign Policy. "Real World. Real Time." Follow Foreign Policy on Facebook. Subscribe to Foreign Policy here. Copyright 2017. Follow Foreign Policy on Twitter.

ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-is-a-nazi-sympathizer-2017-8

View media item 102646​

 

[landr]

* Be Ready and Beware/be wary of the 'Alt-right' coming over and attacking this site and its members. - I'm opening the pandora's box here. *

This article was too good to be nested under one of the already started Politics or Trump threads so I started a new one and will continue to keep running all of the nonsense soon to come out of the Trump Administration.

This is an amazing article straight from the lips of a former member of the 'Alt-right' Breitbart website. See the points bolded in 'Dark Red' below:

The Alt-Right Is Using Trump

Ben Shapiro on how the group will take advantage of its newfound prominence.
By Mike Pesca

Ben Shapiro speaking at Politicon 2016 in Pasadena, California.

Gage Skidmore/Flickr CC

Ben Shapiro is a conservative columnist, former Breitbart editor-at-large, and Never Trump–er who’s now facing anti-Semitic threats from the alt-right. On The Gist, he spoke with Mike Pesca about Donald Trump’s election and what Steve Bannon really means for this country. The interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Is Steve Bannon an anti-Semite?

No, I have no evidence that Steve’s an anti-Semite. I think Steve’s a very, very power-hungry dude who’s willing to use anybody and anything in order to get ahead, and that includes making common cause with the racist, anti-Semitic alt-right.


Is that anti-Semitism?

I want to be careful about attributing personal anti-Semitism to him. I will say that it is appeasement of anti-Semitism, which in my book is certainly not a good thing.

So whatever he has in his heart, he countenances it for either political or media gain.

He certainly did with the alt-right, for sure. And that doesn’t mean that Breitbart itself has been anti-Israel—it hasn’t been. It’s a very right-wing site when it comes to Israel. It also doesn’t mean that Jews who work there, like Joel Pollak for example, have been discriminated against, because they’ll say they haven’t, and I wasn’t when I was working there.* What it does mean is that he allowed the site to be taken over and used by a bunch of alt-right people who are not fond of Jews, are not fond of minorities.

Is this basically the comments section? I have heard him talk about how important it was to let the comments bubble up and drive the direction of the site.

I’m talking about that. I’m also talking about the relationship that he’s had with some of the popularizers of the alt-right, people who wouldn’t consider themselves overtly alt-right but have made a big deal out of providing popular appeal to it. People like Milo Yiannopoulos or the folks who they call the Meme Team who traffic in alt-rightness.

For folks who don’t know what the alt-right is, it might be worthwhile to just sort of start at the beginning and talk about what the alt-right is—because there are a lot of these various definitions floating around, nearly all of which are wrong.

Basically, the alt-right is a group of thinkers who believe that Western civilization is inseparable from European ethnicity—which is racist, obviously. It’s people who believe that if Western civilization were to take in too many people of different colors and different ethnicities and different religions, then that would necessarily involve the interior collapse of Western civilization. As you may notice, this has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence. It has nothing to do actually with Western civilization. The whole principle of Western civilization is that anybody can involve himself or herself in civilized values. That’s not what the alt-right believes—at least its leading thinkers, people like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor and Vox Day. Those kind of folks will openly acknowledge that this is their thought process.

Richard Spencer was just in a big alt-right conference, and his speech ended with a bunch of arm salutes, people yelling “Sieg Heil!” and him winking and quoting in the original German, and criticizing the press using a Nazi phrase.

Yeah, they’re not good people, I think that’s fair to say. Those people have been given this new intellectual veneer by folks like Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo wrote this piece called “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right.” It was given heavy play over Breitbart, and that piece basically made the case that these are just intellectuals who have made common cause of folks like paleo-conservatives—Pat Buchanan and other folks of that ilk.

More than anything, Trump is willing to pay heed to and wink at anybody who provides him even a shred of good coverage.

What the alt-right is trying to do, and what they’ve been trying to do now ever since Donald Trump came to prominence, is a couple of things. One is they’ve been broadening the definition of alt-right; I just wrote this piece for National Review for the print edition this week. They’ve been trying to broaden the definition of alt-right so they can suck people into believing they’re alt-right even though they don’t believe the central tenets of the alt-right. So they’ll say things like, “Well if you just don’t like Paul Ryan, that means you’re alt-right,” or “If you just like memes, that means that you’re alt-right,” or “If you think that the Republicans are too weak-kneed, that means you’re alt-right.” No, that doesn’t mean that you’re alt-right; it means that you’re not an establishment Republican. I’m not a big Paul Ryan fan, per se, but that doesn’t make me alt-right. I’m their No. 1 target, according to the Anti-Defamation League, this year.

So they’ve tried to broaden the definition so they can suck people into believing they’re alt-right, and then make themselves seem indispensable by saying, “Look at all these alt-right people. They’re all out here, and if the Republican Party pushes them to the side, then they’re going to pay an electoral price for that.” And then you have people winking and nodding at them because they think they’re an important constituency. So it’s a couple-step process, and glomming onto Trump has been part of that because Trump, I don’t think, is alt-right. I don’t think that Trump is particularly racist. I think he’s an ignoramus. I think that more than anything, Trump is willing to pay heed to and wink at anybody who provides him even a shred of good coverage. So if the alt-right, which worships at the altar of Trump—if they provide him good coverage, he’s willing to wink and nod at them and not wreck them.

How much does Steve Bannon subscribe to those notions of European centrism? At what point will he stop?

I think that Steve will stop if it becomes politically convenient for him to stop. Steve is not a deeply principled guy on politics; it’s not like he’s coming in with this ramrod agenda. He’s coming in and he’s talking about big government spending. He’s talking about trillion-dollar infrastructure packages. If you had to peg Steve down on ideology or philosophy, you’d say he’s sort of like a European far-right leader. He’s more like Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage than he is like a constitutional conservative. He doesn’t like constitutional conservatism; he thinks that it’s an obstacle in the way of building this new Third Way movement, this independent political movement that is focused on heavy spending—even some redistribution inside the country—but closed borders and tariffs for everybody outside. He calls himself an economic nationalist. They say, “Are you a white nationalist?” and he says, “No, I’m an economic nationalist.” And then when he’s asked about white nationalism and its effect on the far-right in Europe, he says that will sort of fade away as time goes on, and they’ll legitimize. I don’t think so. I’ve never seen a bad movement or a bad person, yet, given power and they become better people.

So you think that Bannon is using the alt-right to get his agenda passed? But do you think that the alt-right thinks it’s using Bannon to get its agenda through?

Yes, and they’ll say it openly—they’ll say, “Bannon isn’t one of us. Breitbart isn’t us. Trump isn’t one of us. But they’re the most useful tool we’ve ever found.”

And they’re not doing that just to distract attention to the media? They really don’t think that Trump is one of them, but he’s a useful idiot?

I think that’s right. I don’t think that they sit around thinking Donald Trump reads Jared Taylor. I mean, I don’t think they think Donald Trump reads books, right? They think that Donald Trump has positions. Those positions are sufficiently warm toward their positions. He’s not throwing them out of the tent. And because he won’t throw them out of the tent, that makes him their best ally.

You think Bannon is wrong morally to play footsie with this group. Do you think it’s wrong politically?

I think it’s wrong politically because I think that everyone’s taking the wrong lessons, right and left, away from this election cycle.

I think on the right, people are taking it like Trump won this big, broad victory; Trump lost the popular vote by over 1 million votes, and he won by very, very narrow margins in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida. And the fact is that when all is said and done, the groups that are growing demographically in the United States are minorities, women, young people—millennials will be 40 percent of the voting population in 2020. And so if you’re banking on this ever-shrinking group, the alt-right, in order to put you over the top, that seems like bad politics. It’s alienating politics; it’s not something that’s going to help.

By the same token, I think that the left is making a huge mistake by labeling everybody on the right “alt-right.” Because what they’re doing is they’re pushing people into the arms of the alt-right. You call people racist enough, and they begin to think OK, well, who’s not calling me a racist—I’ll side with that guy. So the worst thing the left can do is continue to suggest that everyone who backed Trump was a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe; everyone’s evil, everyone’s terrible. What they really should be doing is they should be saying, “Look, we understand one of the reasons that we lost is because Hillary Clinton was a uniquely terrible candidate”—she really was—“and because of that, we’re not trying to throw you guys out of the tent. We think it was a bad choice to choose Trump, but we would sort of appeal to the better angels of your nature—that if we think he’s divisive as time goes on, that you recognize that he’s being divisive.” I think it’s a big mistake to have the left pushing the notion that they’re just going to double-down on the Obama coalition and tell everybody else to go screw.

Can conservative populism succeed without playing footsie with some elements of what we now call the alt-right?

I think they can. I think the alt-right is a very, very small movement that has gained outsize credibility because they’re extraordinarily loud online.

I mentioned earlier this Anti-Defamation League study that said that I was the No. 1 target of anti-Semitism in the journalistic world this year. And that’s because one, I’m Jewish; two, I left Breitbart; three, I didn’t back Trump. I think they said there were, between January and September, something like 20,000 anti-Semitic tweets directed at journalists. And I was the personal recipient of 7,400 of them. So the top 10 was me by a landslide, and then a bunch of people coming in behind. They traced virtually all of these tweets, or a huge percentage of these tweets, to 1,600 accounts.

So it’s a very small but vocal group, and they’re making their presence felt using the echo chambers of Twitter and Facebook and online. And they’re waiting for the left to overplay its hand. And that’s what the left needs to not do.

I’ve been as critical of Steve Bannon as anybody in the media. I was the first critic of Bannon because when I left Breitbart in March, I specifically named Bannon as a nefarious influence at Breitbart, by name. And yet, I was ****** last week to defend Steve Bannon. I think that he’s a terrible person. But because the left can’t just say, “This is a guy who made way for the alt-right, which is quite terrible, and he’s doing a real disservice to the nature of the country by doing so.” The left had to accuse him personally of racism and anti-Semitism, and they had to overstep. This is the big mistake.

You want to empower the alt-right? Keep overstepping. Again, it’s the overstepping by the left that’s driving people into this almost white tribalism. It’s really negative. I hate tribalism on all sides—I hate it on the left and I hate it on the right—and what I’m seeing is that increase across the board.

When you were at Breitbart, how much did you look around how much did what you see bother you? Before you quit, how much was it weighing on you?

The Trump move bothered me because it looked to me like a sellout of any sort of conservative principle on behalf of a guy who Andrew Breitbart rightly called in 2011—when I was wrong about Trump, he was rightly calling Trump a clown in 2011. So I thought that that was disturbing. I didn’t follow the comments section too much, because you guys know from being online, following comments sections is a quick way to the asylum. So I really didn’t spend a lot of time messing around in the comments, if any. I heard the rumors that the comments sections had become an alt-right cesspool, but I didn’t pay attention to it too much. The real obvious shift, to me, in terms of content, came after I left. I declared that I was #NeverTrump on Breitbart, actually, and then three weeks later was the Michelle Fields incident, and I left over that.

She was the reporter who was grabbed by Corey Lewandowski in Florida. And she was a Breitbart reporter, and Breitbart did not stand by her at all.

Not only did they not stand by her, they undercut her. They ran a piece suggesting that it never could have happened the way that she said it happened, and then they still have columnists at their website who claim that the whole thing was a hoax set up by me and Michelle and Ben Terris from the Washington Post—we got together in a dark room and decided to come up with the worst conspiracy in human history.*This kind of stuff is crap, obviously.

But to me, the major public move in favor of the alt-right came after I left. Not to be self-centered, but I think part of it had to do with the fact that I was one of the biggest-name writers on the site, just in terms of social media following. And after I left, they looked around at their staff, and they said, “Who can we elevate?” The next biggest name was Yiannopoulos. And so two weeks later, they come out with that alt-right piece glorifying Richard Spencer and such.

What was your relationship with Milo Yiannopoulos then, and what is it now?

I never had a relationship with Milo. We sort of would joke around with each other online. I thought that he was kind of—he’s a provocateur, so like all provocateurs, he did some stuff that was funny and some stuff I thought that was over-the-top. But I thought he was doing some stuff that was interesting, if over-the-top.

And then there was a breaking point where he said the Constitution and conservatism were done, and it was going to be replaced by this new rising alt-right movement that didn’t care about the Constitution—you’re cucks, you’re losers, all the rest of this stuff. And then it gradually got worse, to the point where, when my second kid was born in May, Milo—who pretends that he’s not alt-right—sent a tweet at me with a picture of a black kid. Because the way that this works is that if you are not alt-right, if you’re anti-Trump, then according to the alt-right you must be what they call a “cuck”—for those who don’t follow this sort of stuff—because you have two brain cells to rub together. Cuck, according to the alt-right, means that you’re a white person who wants to watch his wife have sex with a black man, right? Because you’re poisoning the racial stock of the United States, so you want your own racial stock “poisoned.” I always found the whole thing bewildering. I’m not interested in my wife having sex with a man of any race; I’m not sure why a black guy would be significantly worse, just overall! It seems pretty terrible all the way through.

That’s a little nuance I hadn’t really thought of. They’d be OK with the white man having sex with their wife? Again, one of those not-too-well-thought-out aspects.

As long as he’s a pure Aryan shtupping your wife, then you’re fine. The whole thing is—that’s asinine. But he tweeted a picture of a black baby of me on the day that my ******* was born because I’m a cuck, because I didn’t back Trump. As soon as Milo was banned from Twitter—by the way, I don’t favor bans on Twitter generally. Twitter’s a private company, and it can do what it wants, but I don’t like people getting banned on Twitter unless there’s active harassment. I think it’s dangerous territory. But I can say this: When Milo was thrown off of Twitter, 70 percent of the anti-Semitism in my feed disappeared immediately.

If one wants to oppose what one perceives as some of the possible excesses of the Trump presidency, what is the best way, knowing what you know about Bannon and Breitbart and the alt-right, to oppose those aspects that I’m certain almost all of the listeners on my show would want to oppose?

I understand why people are concerned about Trump being president; I’m concerned about Trump being president. I think that it’s up to everybody to hold him accountable. But if you’re asking what’s going to impact policy? As I said to Charles Blow on CNN, please do not turn everything up to 11. Everybody’s going deaf. If you’re all going to go nuts over a Hamilton tweet, wait until he’s using the White House to do business for Trump Inc. Look at what his people want. And I’m not talking about the alt-right; the alt-right is going to back him no matter what. I’m talking about the traditional Republican voter who wants to see him do certain things. Watch where he commits a heresy and then say, “If the shoe were on the other foot and this were Obama, you’d be ticked.”

So for example, if Barack Obama went to an event, was booed, and then started tweeting about how terrible the event was and how all the people should shut up and apologize, you’d be ticked. It wouldn’t mean that he was censoring anything, but you’d be ticked, and you’d have a right to be ticked.

The same thing is true for some of the Trump business reports. There’s a report today that may or may not be verified—we’re still finding out—about him trying to hit up the president of Argentina for a special favor on Trump Tower. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but we do know, according to the Washington Post, that Trump Hotel representatives have been telling ambassadors to use Trump Hotels when they come to town. That’s a serious conflict, obviously.

I think that the more the left focuses on the things that are actually serious regardless of your politics—like corruption, like policies that are self-directed, that kind of stuff—that will have more of an impact than just going around shouting, “Racist, racist, racist!” I think one of the big problems here is that if you called Mitt Romney a racist in 2012—as Bill Maher said, if you turned it all the way up to 11 for Mitt Romney—it’s very difficult for people to hear you when you turn it up to 12 for Trump.

Correction, Nov. 23, 2016: Due to transcription errors, this post originally misspelled Joel Pollak’s and Ben Terris’ last names.

REF: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...alt_right_and_why_the_left_needs_to_turn.html

​

I worry about white nationalists using the openness and freedom of speech on this site to spew their hate speech. Some content here is uncomfortable for me but i accept it is some peoples kink to feel degraded and that some people would not enjoy some things i do.
I am happy their are staff members who are aware of what is going on in the world around us and is prepared to protect the site from real hate speech.

 

[BigBlackBull76]

Facepalm to this thread

Nine months and counting and still no evidence of Russian interference in the election.

@syscom3, and others..

Turn off that Fox news media propagandist arm of Trump and the GOP, break out of the group-think hive mind, think for yourselves, and remain critical of everything you read, see or hear.

* * FACTS * *​

FOR THOSE STILL SLEEPING AND IN DENIAL ON TRUMP'S GUILT (HE DIDN'T COMMIT ANY CRIME AND THERE IS NO PROOF CAMP)...

HERE WE GO - THE MINUTE HAND IS CLICKING CLOSER & CLOSER TO 1200 MIDNIGHT ON THE DOOMSDAY CLOCK FOR TRUMP AND HIS FINAL ENDING. TRUMP IS A LOSER AND CLOSER TO HIS LOSING ASS FINALLY GETTING THE BOOT IN THE ASS FOR GOOD!!!!!!

News on Friday that special counsel Robert Mueller has obtained a letter drafted by President Donald Trump that details his reasons for firing then-FBI director James Comey has likely bolstered the progress of the Russia investigation, and may have landed another close Trump confidant in its crosshairs.

Mueller was put in charge of the investigation — which is examining whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow during last year's presidential election — after Trump dismissed Comey in May. As part of his investigation, Mueller is also examining whether Trump obstructed justice when he fired the FBI director four months ago.

The letter Mueller is reviewing was drafted by Trump along with policy adviser Stephen Miller, and legal experts say it is possibly the most critical piece of evidence in Mueller's obstruction-of-justice case since Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in June, because it can give prosecutors a direct window into Trump's thinking shortly before he fired Comey.

The biggest challenge a prosecutor faces in an obstruction-of-justice case is proving corrupt intent, which is almost always difficult to establish. But Trump's letter could change the ballgame.

"The best way to prove someone's intent is through their own words and actions," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti told Business Insider in an interview Saturday. "Here, you have a letter that was written by Miller, at the direction of the president, that contains what the president's thoughts were at that time."

Though the letter's full contents remain unclear, The Washington Post reported that it focused on what was perhaps Trump's greatest frustration with Comey: that the FBI director did not publicly announce, when he was leading the bureau's investigation, that Trump was not personally under investigation.

Former FBI Director James Comey Drew Angerer/Getty Images

"It's problematic for Trump if he fired Comey because he did not take actions in the investigation that would benefit Trump personally," Mariotti said. "That makes Mueller's case stronger."

Cornell Law School associate dean and criminal law expert Jens David Ohlin echoed that assessment.

"The draft letter is extremely relevant to Mueller's investigation because it may yield evidence about the true reason that Trump fired Comey," Ohlin said. "If Trump fired Comey to impede an investigation that might implicate his own campaign or administration, that is obstruction of justice."

Trump put the letter together shortly after Comey's May 3 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, during which he defended his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. The president was reportedly incensed after Comey acknowledged that his October announcement that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Clinton, days before the election, could have impacted its results.

Trump's lawyer, Ty Cobb, told Business Insider in an email Saturday that the letter has long been in Mueller's possession and its existence was known both to the special counsel's team, as well as to the Department of Justice, "which has had a copy since the day it was first discussed within the White House." He added there was "little, IF ANY, objection within the White House" to the letter, and that it focused primarily on Comey's "usurpation of powers and other erratic and inexplicable conduct."

The long weekend during which Trump drafted the letter at his Bedminster golf club began on Thursday, May 4, The New York Times reported on Friday. Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein was given a copy of Trump's draft letter on Monday, May 8, and then proceeded to write a separate memo as to why Comey should be fired.

Another Trump confidant comes under scrutiny

Stephen Miller tapes Sunday show interviews from the White House. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

The letter also implicates Miller, who The Post said acted as a "stenographer" for Trump in writing the letter.

Miller, an ally of the recently ousted chief strategist Steve Bannon, has emerged in recent months as a Trump loyalist within the administration.

Given his role in the matter, Miller will likely be, at the very least, a witness in Mueller's investigation. Other possible witnesses include Trump's *******, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, who were both with Trump at his Bedminster golf club when he drafted the letter during a weekend in early May.

If Miller acted primarily as a transcriber, he could have a smaller part in the investigation. However, "if he was actively working with the president to plan how they could derail or ******* the Russia investigation," Mariotti said, "that could present legal problems for Miller."

Ohlin added that Miller and anyone else involved in Comey's firing — or drafting the letter — may be accessories or co-conspirators to that crime as well.

The question then becomes, Mariotti added, "whether there was an agreement between Miller and the president to obstruct justice." If that were the case, it could amount to conspiracy, he said.

Another way the adviser could be implicated in the investigation is if, for example, the president was acting in a way to obstruct justice, and Miller knew about that and tried to do what he could to help Trump succeed. If that were the case, Miller could have been aiding and abetting a crime.

Mariotti said those two possibilities are likely the biggest potential sources of criminal liability for Miller.

The letter, as a whole, is a crucial part of the Russia controversy because it "goes directly to the biggest issue at question — what Trump's intent was as to the Russia investigation," Mariotti said.

Trump's best defense would likely be that the draft letter did not reflect his true thinking on the subject, and that's why never sent it, Ohlin said.

He added, however, that he didn't believe the argument would hold much water because "it seems more likely that the draft letter reflected his true thinking, but then was edited down for other reasons."

Though the White House initially said that Trump fired Comey based entirely on Rosenstein's and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recommendations, Trump later said he had already decided to fire Comey, and that Rosenstein's recommendation sealed the deal.

His explanation changed again later on, when he admitted to NBC News' Lester Holt that he had fired Comey because of "this Russia thing," and that he was going to dismiss the FBI director regardless of Rosenstein's input.

President Donald Trump looks at Finnish President Sauli Niinisto during a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, Monday, Aug. 28, 2017, in Washington. AP Photo/Alex Brandon

** BBB76: BIG KEY TAKE-AWAY HERE AND THIS COULD BE VERY DAMNING OF TRUMP & SEALS HIS INEVITABLE FATE:

And as far as that goes, White House counsel Don McGahn's conversation with Trump when he advised him against sending the letter could be another key piece of the puzzle.

"We don't know exactly what McGahn said, but the mere fact that he put a stop to that letter is another piece of evidence that Mueller could use to say, 'Donald Trump was warned by the White House counsel that this was a problematic step and decided to do it anyway,'" Mariotti told Business Insider on Saturday morning, and later spoke about on Twitter.

The substance of what McGahn told Trump is important — and there's no guarantee that it could be withheld as privileged information.

The reason is that a federal court of appeals ruled in 1998, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, that deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey had to submit to the special prosecutor's questions about President Bill Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky. In that case, the court held that there is no attorney-client privilege between a government lawyer and a government employee in response to a grand jury inquiry.

***** If that ruling holds as it relates to the obstruction-of-justice investigation, it's possible the public will eventually hear what McGahn told the president. "If he said anything along the lines of, 'There's potential criminal liability if you shut down this investigation,' that would be extraordinarily powerful evidence against Trump," Mariotti said. *****

In that case, McGahn's advice to Trump could possibly become as important as Trump's state of mind when he crafted the letter.

ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/step...f-justice-mueller-russia-investigation-2017-9

• 
  
  
  • • 
      
      
      
      • 
        

• 
  
  
  • • 
      
      
      

 

[BigBlackBull76]

THEY'RE BAAACKK...



ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/whit...charlottesville-virginia-robert-e-lee-2017-10

 

[cpl2010co]

everytime someone posts some good liberal facts you do that yawn thing.... it makes you look.... tired!
might I recommend.....

prescription:
2hrs of CNN daily for 2 weeks.... and then check back

signed:
Dr. Dick

After 2 hrs of CNN you will be significantly dulled and extremely ill informed.

After 28 hrs - 2 wks- you will be totally delusiional and positive Russia flies on unicorns and Hilary didn't lose a rigged election.

Oh and that the US is the most oppressive country in the world.

 

[subhub174014]

you will be totally delusiional and positive Russia flies on unicorns and Hilary didn't lose a rigged election

you have spouted your ******* on 4 different threads today....
opinions are fine and everyone has them...but opinions are NOT facts
before you go shooting off you need to learn the facts!
I do realize you Trump people deal in alternative facts...but not everyone on this board is a trump supporter
matter of fact most of them have shut up and left to another more appealing thread on this site...since they seem to be on the losing end of most arguments when it comes to defending your man
so either stick with the sex threads...or educate your self

 

[Beachescouple]

After 2 hrs of CNN you will be significantly dulled and extremely ill informed.

After 28 hrs - 2 wks- you will be totally delusiional and positive Russia flies on unicorns and Hilary didn't lose a rigged election.

Oh and that the US is the most oppressive country in the world.

And we still have slaves. That's only after watching Chris Cuomo for more than 15 minutes

 

[subhub174014]

damn....guards must have fallen asleep at the loonie bin yesterday

 

[cpl2010co]

damn....guards must have fallen asleep at the loonie bin yesterday

That is the only reason you are out. You must return now for your much needed treatment

 

[Beachescouple]

That is the only reason you are out. You must return now for your much needed treatment

Its really too bad what's happened to network and cable news. There is no news anymore. Opinion journalism and from the radical left's perspective. If I see a source is one of them networks, goes right to the trash.

 

[subhub174014]

 

[subhub174014]

 

[blkmale80]

BBB76,

An articulate/informed thread hope people start to wake up.

 

[subhub174014]

That's only after watching Chris Cuomo for more than 15 minutes

I'll give you that one.....I have only watched him once and thought he was a real ass!

I can take wolfe...I like how king handles politics on voting nights.....and I really like jake tapper...the rest?????
and I see that they moved Cuomo to prime time....I think he is trying to make a name for himself or something

but anyway I am not sold on CNN..but I like jake...and the guy on Sundays..Ack Mod something or other that is a writer for the times that does world and us news

CNN does lean pretty heavy to the left...but for the most part...they are factual...unlike Fox!