|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 20 2016 01:49 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
But isn't this also why something like breitbart.com can never be "the new mainstream news"? Its whole success is derived from an extremely targeted product; outlets like the NYT try to make news for everyone to read, but these websites only appeal to a relatively small subsection of the population. To broaden their appeal they'd have to quit dealing in conspiracy theories, not just do far-right editorials, etc. at which point they'd lose their targeted appeal and wind up trying to beat conventional news outlets at their own game.
On November 20 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote:
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media.
The truth exposed by this election is outlets like the NYT did not, as you say, "try to make news for everyone to read," but to push their own narrative on their readership (though "mak[ing] news" by itself is apropos). As a matter of fact, they restricted their appeal to readers with very liberal sensibilities and those unaware of the slanted product/editorializing in news stories. It created the market for a product with opposing editorial outlook by this neglect.
On November 19 2016 01:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 00:46 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2016 23:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 18 2016 09:17 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2016 08:56 ACrow wrote:On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. Basic human rights. Google Geneva Conventions. A question like that is disturbing to be quite frank. The disturbing aspect is when people like you try to color it entirely one way or another. The rules of war aren't being followed by terrorists disguising themselves among a civilian population and committing acts of war against a civilian population. In centuries past, uniformed fighters for either side were captured and treated as prisoners of war at the same time as spies caught wearing their enemy's uniform were summarily shot or hanged. The last batch of polls I saw agreed that harsh interrogation techniques should be used against terrorists and they're believed to be effective (This was back in the days of the senate investigations on the use of torture and the CIA defense). It should be debated still with respect to what methods are used and on what suspects. The pithy high moral ground argument is absolutely craven. But, hey, if we're going to moral grandstanding, let's also include Cheney's definition: "[it's] an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. There's this notion that somehow there's moral equivalence between what the terrorists and what we do." In other news, I'm all for Democrats putting radical Keith Ellison in as DNC chair. Despite the furor over Trump aide Steve Bannon’s alleged anti-Semitism, there’s been virtually no media attention paid to the man likely to become the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, Cong. Keith Ellison (D-MN).
The man poised to head the Democratic Party was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam well into his 30’s who publicly spewed anti-Semitism and later in life as a Congressional candidate knowingly accepted $50,000 in campaign contributions given and raised by Islamic radicals who openly supported Islamic terrorism and were leaders of front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
And once in office as a Congressman, Keith Ellison more than hinted that 9/11 was an inside job carried out to create pretext for war against Muslims – a trope often pushed by anti-Semites who claim Israeli or “Mossad” complicity – by comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire, the infamous 1933 arson of the German Parliament building, which the Nazis pinned on Communists and thus used to gain majority control of the government and establish Nazi Germany.
To be clear, Ellison has never genuinely repudiated his past anti-Semitism or his close association with the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or its co-founder, Nihad Awad, who has publicly supported Islamic terrorism. Daily CallerIn an attempt to stave off a civil war in the ranks, Democratic leaders are scrambling to unite behind a candidate for the party's chairmanship – and have landed for now on a Louis Farrakhan-linked congressman who once called for Dick Cheney’s impeachment and compared George W. Bush to Hitler.
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress and a leading progressive among House Democrats, already has picked up the backing of both the Democratic Party’s left – with support from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – and its establishment, receiving endorsements from Senate leaders Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and retiring Harry Reid, D-Nev. Fox NewsRepublicans will probably need the extra push when Trump fails to appease conservatives, trade protectionists, and the alt-right leaning nationalist populists. First off, it blows my mind how little you understand the ethics of warfare. "They don't follow the rules of war" isn't an excuse for us not to. That's textbook stuff. Not only is torture a morally despicable act that undermines our credibility as an ethical authority in the world, torture doesn't work, and this has been shown repeatedly. People will say whatever they think their captors want to hear to stop the torture. They won't say the truth necessarily. Second, your credibility continues to be suspect when you link the Daily Caller. Third, most of the things that article said are straight-up lies. To name a few, Ellison wasn't a Nation of Islam spokesman because he was never part of the Nation of Islam, he did publicly denounce writings he made in law school concerning the Nation of Islam, and he never said 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, he explicitly said that he didn't believe that. The last time we talked about the ethics of warfare, everyone left of center piled on xDaunt for supporting genocide. So I say it blows my mind how unwilling anyone here is to examine what the ethics of warfare looks like honestly and critically. I can't argue with a religious devotion to all wars looking like nation state warfare with standing armies at all. Intelligence experts, former heads of CIA, and commentators argue the opposite on the effectiveness argument, and point to examples when it has worked to save lives. Feinstein's study disagreed, other experts disagree, and the debate keeps being rehashed in the public square despite on side saying the debate is over. How far is too far is still a debate worth having, particularly humiliation just for the sake of degradement and scattered incidents of agents disobeying their own training. Come to terms that the enemy is willing to kill thousands of civilians in an despicable act, and hide among the civilian population when the war returns to their own turf. We haven't also decapitated civilians and POWs to produce our recruitment videos. And the ethical high ground is hard to fathom given how much hot air is spent calling President Bush a war criminal and rejecting legal legitimacy for the stolen elections. And as for Ellison link your sources too, just don't flatly declare everything the journalist claims is false. Whether or not he gave speeches on their behalf and blamed Jews for all kinds of ills is pretty easy to find. Which is why I suspect he really did those things, in addition to the Muslim brotherhood and CAIR ties. But I should also ask you where your "repented afterwards" charity ends. Is it where the Democratic Party ends? Is it David Duke renouncing tomorrow, you'd whitewash he past? It's alleged he was a vocal radical well into his 30s and compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire. "Oops I guess he never meant that ever" is enough to pave his ascension, or should I also presume you don't think poorly of 9/11 inside job theorists, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood (I'm open minded here) We had a critical discussion of the use of genocide. You just labeled it this way because you didn't like the answer that people came to. As for Ellison, transcripts of that speech show that he was comparing the response of the government to 9/11 to the response of the German government to the Reichstag Fire. He even explicitly said that he doesn't believe 9/11 conspiracy theories to Katherine Kersten of the Start Tribune in 2007. I also find it funny that you are one of the people constantly screaming about "media bias!", yet you don't put the slightest effort into actually taking a slightly more objective look at Ellison's stories, and instead rely on a bunch of tabloids to "inform" you of the news. It seems you only care about "media bias" when the media presented goes contrary to your preconceived notions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/15/why-keith-ellison-is-a-bold-pick-for-dnc-chair-and-a-controversial-one/A story from a slightly more respectable news source would've given you more credibility. And another one, actually laying out his involvement with the Nation of Islam and his explicit denouncement of it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000951.htmlAs for his wildly anti-Semitic remarks, quote them please, or I'm just going to call more B.S. on you.
Sorry, the first link is paywalled for me so you'll have to pullquote or find alternative sources.
When outlets like WaPo tried to massage his record in his defense, the blogosphere pulled news articles with direct quotes and laid out his history with radical group Nation of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan (and I have to make the assumption that you agree that if his actual involvement with Nation of Islam was contrary to his stated denials, it would be damaging to him and connect him to a group you do not align with. I apologize if you think Nation of Islam is an upstanding group promoting racial harmony (SPLC on NOI+ Show Spoiler +"[T]he Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't a great man for me as a black person, but he was a great German. Now, I'm not proud of Hitler's evils against Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He raised Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there's a similarity in that we are raising our people up from nothing."
— Louis Farrakhan, radio interview, March 11, 1984
Powerline has the timeline stretching for years, sourced from local news articles. Back in 1990, he wrote two articles defending Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Abdul Muhammad
Ellison was born Catholic in Detroit. He states that he converted to Islam as an undergraduate at Wayne State University. As a third-year student at the University of Minnesota Law School in 1989-90, he wrote two columns for the Minnesota Daily under the name "Keith Hakim." In the first, Ellison refers to "Minister Louis Farrakhan," defends Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Abdul Muhammad, and speaks in the voice of a Nation of Islam advocate. In the second, "Hakim" demands reparations for slavery and throws in a demand for an optional separate homeland for American blacks. In February 1990, Ellison participated in sponsoring Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) to speak at the law school on the subject "Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?" Jewish law students met personally with Ellison and appealed to him not to sponsor the speech at the law school; he rejected their appeal, and, as anticipated, Ture gave a notoriously anti-Semitic speech.
The Weekly Standard, sourcing his speeches and articles from the Minnesota Daily, also shows his actions in line with NOI like accusing the charges brought against a SLA as retribution against Minister Farrakhan.
In 1995, he wrote defending charges that Farrakhan was an anti-semite and therefore not a good role model + Show Spoiler [image] +. In 1997, writing under Keith Ellison-Muhammad, he defended the statement of "Jews are the most racist white people." + Show Spoiler +. His actual statement: + Show Spoiler +. The next year, he wants endorsement from the DFL (Minnesota) for his congressional run, and accepts the affiliation with Nation of Islam + Show Spoiler +.
It's not some passing affiliation ("only 18 months" har har). It's of his own doing, and his attempts to deny it after the fact are indicative of how moderate he wants to appear now. He's also protested that he was ignorant of all the issues in NOI. He expects people not to look deeper than his friendly media source coverage of past controversies. I note how you accuse me of never putting effort into actually taking a more objective look. Let me say how discouraging it is to put effort into disabusing you and others of your wrong notions over the course of this entire thread, only to see the goalposts moved and cheap, one-line dismissive remarks on how none of it matters because of X or Y. I'm totally expecting you to twist and claim someone with this long of a history and documented support can also be ignorant of its dark side and only involved himself because of his commitment to racial and religious progress.
The fact of his Schumer support and other big-name endorsements should give anyone pause, particularly if you were horrified about the accusations against Bannon of antisemitism, racism, and all the rest. I'm no democrat, but if you are sincere in hoping the party can rebound after DWS leadership, I'd assume conscientious Democrats would have issues with his long history of radicalism and what that would say about the party if he gains this title. I remember how many people claimed Clinton was eminently electable, that her history shows competence and suitability for President (and the same outlets you quote now repeated it constantly), and then how many immediately turned around to claim her figure was the absolute reason she discouraged votes and was considered unsuitable by voters. Here's your chance to support another of the names mentioned for DNC chair.
|
On November 20 2016 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote:
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media. When you have to voluntarily dismiss the truth sometimes, and most of the time bend it pretty hard, in order for your alternative narrative to function, then it has some basic flaws.
I find all of these attacks against Breitbart and alternative media to be highly amusing because those doing the attacking are demonstrating a tremendous lack of self-awareness regarding the flaws of their preferred news platforms. We just came out of an election where the mainstream/establishment news sources were proven to be catastrophically wrong on a lot of things. Should they be held accountable? Of course not! Instead, we apparently need to go on a witch hunt to silence "fake" news sources. God forbid we trust the people to inform themselves!
And why is silencing the opposition the left's first answer to everything? What happened to liberal intellectual curiosity?
|
On November 20 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote:
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media. When you have to voluntarily dismiss the truth sometimes, and most of the time bend it pretty hard, in order for your alternative narrative to function, then it has some basic flaws. I find all of these attacks against Breitbart and alternative media to be highly amusing because those doing the attacking are demonstrating a tremendous lack of self-awareness regarding the flaws of their preferred news platforms. We just came out of an election where the mainstream/establishment news sources were proven to be catastrophically wrong on a lot of things. Should they be held accountable? Of course not! Instead, we apparently need to go on a witch hunt to silence "fake" news sources. God forbid we trust the people to inform themselves! And why is silencing the opposition the left's first answer to everything? What happened to liberal intellectual curiosity?
This lack of self-awareness that you posit is just an assumption on your part. Some of us don't think the american media is particularly good (most of us?).
If you want to criticize the establishment media for being biased or incorrect, I'm sure you can produce a credible argument. But if you're going to do that, you don't get to stand behind other media when they do the same thing, especially not when they do it to a much higher degree.
Edit: and yes, btw, if there are fake news everywhere and nobody is acknowledging that it's the case, it's going to be harder to inform yourself, I don't think that's a very controversial position.
|
On November 20 2016 02:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The US vice-president elect, Mike Pence, was booed by a theater audience when he attended the hit hip-hop musical Hamilton in New York on Friday night – and then had a message about protecting diversity delivered to him from the stage after the curtain call.
On Saturday, President-elect Donald Trump accused theatre-goers of having “harassed” Pence, writing on Twitter: “Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen!”
He also demanded an apology: “The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”
On Friday night, as Pence entered the auditorium for the Broadway show at the Richard Rogers Theater, video taken by onlookers and posted to social media picked up some audience members cheering him, then more people booing him.
Pence walked down the aisle towards his seat and waved briefly as people in the theater clearly began to realize who he was. Then the boos began.
The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence. Patrons did not lose sight of the irony of a strong conservative, with a record of opposition against gay rights, attending a hip-hop musical with a pointedly diverse cast was not lost on , as noted in an early report by Variety magazine.
At first it was thought Pence had left the show at the interval, but it later turned out that he had returned to his seat, possibly after the lights went down, at the beginning of the second act in an attempt to minimize disruption. Source
Let's see, interrupting a performance by booing the next Vice President of the United States. Turning a musical into a condescending lecture. I'd say this is a great start to the next fundraising season.
I mean, did it only apply to Obama when he wanted a show of good faith from those that thought he'd undermine America's institutions? Quick, let's believe the worst of the left's fearful histrionics and repeat them hoping the next administration will "uphold our inalienable rights?" So embarrassing. + Show Spoiler [Burge might've said it best] +
I sincerely wonder what the next week will bring. This past week was all about the plague of fake news from distrusted news sites. If it's another week of protests and stories attacking the transition team's performance, it might seal the response to a free and fair election in the minds of the American voter long enough to be remembered in 2018 midterms. Democrats defend many states Trump won, the hardest pulls seem to be IN ND WV MO and MT.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 20 2016 03:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2016 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote:
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media. When you have to voluntarily dismiss the truth sometimes, and most of the time bend it pretty hard, in order for your alternative narrative to function, then it has some basic flaws. I find all of these attacks against Breitbart and alternative media to be highly amusing because those doing the attacking are demonstrating a tremendous lack of self-awareness regarding the flaws of their preferred news platforms. We just came out of an election where the mainstream/establishment news sources were proven to be catastrophically wrong on a lot of things. Should they be held accountable? Of course not! Instead, we apparently need to go on a witch hunt to silence "fake" news sources. God forbid we trust the people to inform themselves! And why is silencing the opposition the left's first answer to everything? What happened to liberal intellectual curiosity? This lack of self-awareness that you posit is just an assumption on your part. Some of us don't think the american media is particularly good (most of us?). If you want to criticize the establishment media for being biased or incorrect, I'm sure you can produce a credible argument. But if you're going to do that, you don't get to stand behind other media when they do the same thing, especially not when they do it to a much higher degree. Edit: and yes, btw, if there are fake news everywhere and nobody is acknowledging that it's the case, it's going to be harder to inform yourself, I don't think that's a very controversial position.
The greatest failure of the establishment in the US election cycle was favouring Clinton over Bernie Sanders and consistently casting Bernie as an un-serious candidate in the primaries. I don't think the media will be having any where near the proper level of self-reflection on that failure.
The more visible failure was the media's overconfidence in a Clinton victory. At least that will drive some self-reflection on the bubble that they live in and how much they lost touch with middle America.
|
On November 20 2016 03:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 02:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The US vice-president elect, Mike Pence, was booed by a theater audience when he attended the hit hip-hop musical Hamilton in New York on Friday night – and then had a message about protecting diversity delivered to him from the stage after the curtain call.
On Saturday, President-elect Donald Trump accused theatre-goers of having “harassed” Pence, writing on Twitter: “Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen!”
He also demanded an apology: “The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”
On Friday night, as Pence entered the auditorium for the Broadway show at the Richard Rogers Theater, video taken by onlookers and posted to social media picked up some audience members cheering him, then more people booing him.
Pence walked down the aisle towards his seat and waved briefly as people in the theater clearly began to realize who he was. Then the boos began.
The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence. Patrons did not lose sight of the irony of a strong conservative, with a record of opposition against gay rights, attending a hip-hop musical with a pointedly diverse cast was not lost on , as noted in an early report by Variety magazine.
At first it was thought Pence had left the show at the interval, but it later turned out that he had returned to his seat, possibly after the lights went down, at the beginning of the second act in an attempt to minimize disruption. Source Let's see, interrupting a performance by booing the next Vice President of the United States. Turning a musical into a condescending lecture. I'd say this is a great start to the next fundraising season. I mean, did it only apply to Obama when he wanted a show of good faith from those that thought he'd undermine America's institutions? Quick, let's believe the worst of the left's fearful histrionics and repeat them hoping the next administration will "uphold our inalienable rights?" So embarrassing. + Show Spoiler [Burge might've said it best] +
1. They didn't interrupt a performance. The performance was over.
2. They didn't boo. The audience bood.
3. They did not turn a musical into a lecture. The speech was about 2 minutes or less. The approx run time of hamilton is about 165 minutes.
Of the things that you said happened, the only one you are remotely correct on is that Mike Pence is the Vice President elect of the USA.
But hey, it's everyone else that's projecting.
|
On November 20 2016 03:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 01:49 ChristianS wrote:On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
But isn't this also why something like breitbart.com can never be "the new mainstream news"? Its whole success is derived from an extremely targeted product; outlets like the NYT try to make news for everyone to read, but these websites only appeal to a relatively small subsection of the population. To broaden their appeal they'd have to quit dealing in conspiracy theories, not just do far-right editorials, etc. at which point they'd lose their targeted appeal and wind up trying to beat conventional news outlets at their own game. Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote:
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media. The truth exposed by this election is outlets like the NYT did not, as you say, "try to make news for everyone to read," but to push their own narrative on their readership (though "mak[ing] news" by itself is apropos). As a matter of fact, they restricted their appeal to readers with very liberal sensibilities and those unaware of the slanted product/editorializing in news stories. It created the market for a product with opposing editorial outlook by this neglect. Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 01:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 19 2016 00:46 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2016 23:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 18 2016 09:17 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2016 08:56 ACrow wrote:On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. Basic human rights. Google Geneva Conventions. A question like that is disturbing to be quite frank. The disturbing aspect is when people like you try to color it entirely one way or another. The rules of war aren't being followed by terrorists disguising themselves among a civilian population and committing acts of war against a civilian population. In centuries past, uniformed fighters for either side were captured and treated as prisoners of war at the same time as spies caught wearing their enemy's uniform were summarily shot or hanged. The last batch of polls I saw agreed that harsh interrogation techniques should be used against terrorists and they're believed to be effective (This was back in the days of the senate investigations on the use of torture and the CIA defense). It should be debated still with respect to what methods are used and on what suspects. The pithy high moral ground argument is absolutely craven. But, hey, if we're going to moral grandstanding, let's also include Cheney's definition: "[it's] an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. There's this notion that somehow there's moral equivalence between what the terrorists and what we do." In other news, I'm all for Democrats putting radical Keith Ellison in as DNC chair. Despite the furor over Trump aide Steve Bannon’s alleged anti-Semitism, there’s been virtually no media attention paid to the man likely to become the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, Cong. Keith Ellison (D-MN).
The man poised to head the Democratic Party was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam well into his 30’s who publicly spewed anti-Semitism and later in life as a Congressional candidate knowingly accepted $50,000 in campaign contributions given and raised by Islamic radicals who openly supported Islamic terrorism and were leaders of front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
And once in office as a Congressman, Keith Ellison more than hinted that 9/11 was an inside job carried out to create pretext for war against Muslims – a trope often pushed by anti-Semites who claim Israeli or “Mossad” complicity – by comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire, the infamous 1933 arson of the German Parliament building, which the Nazis pinned on Communists and thus used to gain majority control of the government and establish Nazi Germany.
To be clear, Ellison has never genuinely repudiated his past anti-Semitism or his close association with the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or its co-founder, Nihad Awad, who has publicly supported Islamic terrorism. Daily CallerIn an attempt to stave off a civil war in the ranks, Democratic leaders are scrambling to unite behind a candidate for the party's chairmanship – and have landed for now on a Louis Farrakhan-linked congressman who once called for Dick Cheney’s impeachment and compared George W. Bush to Hitler.
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress and a leading progressive among House Democrats, already has picked up the backing of both the Democratic Party’s left – with support from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – and its establishment, receiving endorsements from Senate leaders Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and retiring Harry Reid, D-Nev. Fox NewsRepublicans will probably need the extra push when Trump fails to appease conservatives, trade protectionists, and the alt-right leaning nationalist populists. First off, it blows my mind how little you understand the ethics of warfare. "They don't follow the rules of war" isn't an excuse for us not to. That's textbook stuff. Not only is torture a morally despicable act that undermines our credibility as an ethical authority in the world, torture doesn't work, and this has been shown repeatedly. People will say whatever they think their captors want to hear to stop the torture. They won't say the truth necessarily. Second, your credibility continues to be suspect when you link the Daily Caller. Third, most of the things that article said are straight-up lies. To name a few, Ellison wasn't a Nation of Islam spokesman because he was never part of the Nation of Islam, he did publicly denounce writings he made in law school concerning the Nation of Islam, and he never said 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, he explicitly said that he didn't believe that. The last time we talked about the ethics of warfare, everyone left of center piled on xDaunt for supporting genocide. So I say it blows my mind how unwilling anyone here is to examine what the ethics of warfare looks like honestly and critically. I can't argue with a religious devotion to all wars looking like nation state warfare with standing armies at all. Intelligence experts, former heads of CIA, and commentators argue the opposite on the effectiveness argument, and point to examples when it has worked to save lives. Feinstein's study disagreed, other experts disagree, and the debate keeps being rehashed in the public square despite on side saying the debate is over. How far is too far is still a debate worth having, particularly humiliation just for the sake of degradement and scattered incidents of agents disobeying their own training. Come to terms that the enemy is willing to kill thousands of civilians in an despicable act, and hide among the civilian population when the war returns to their own turf. We haven't also decapitated civilians and POWs to produce our recruitment videos. And the ethical high ground is hard to fathom given how much hot air is spent calling President Bush a war criminal and rejecting legal legitimacy for the stolen elections. And as for Ellison link your sources too, just don't flatly declare everything the journalist claims is false. Whether or not he gave speeches on their behalf and blamed Jews for all kinds of ills is pretty easy to find. Which is why I suspect he really did those things, in addition to the Muslim brotherhood and CAIR ties. But I should also ask you where your "repented afterwards" charity ends. Is it where the Democratic Party ends? Is it David Duke renouncing tomorrow, you'd whitewash he past? It's alleged he was a vocal radical well into his 30s and compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire. "Oops I guess he never meant that ever" is enough to pave his ascension, or should I also presume you don't think poorly of 9/11 inside job theorists, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood (I'm open minded here) We had a critical discussion of the use of genocide. You just labeled it this way because you didn't like the answer that people came to. As for Ellison, transcripts of that speech show that he was comparing the response of the government to 9/11 to the response of the German government to the Reichstag Fire. He even explicitly said that he doesn't believe 9/11 conspiracy theories to Katherine Kersten of the Start Tribune in 2007. I also find it funny that you are one of the people constantly screaming about "media bias!", yet you don't put the slightest effort into actually taking a slightly more objective look at Ellison's stories, and instead rely on a bunch of tabloids to "inform" you of the news. It seems you only care about "media bias" when the media presented goes contrary to your preconceived notions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/15/why-keith-ellison-is-a-bold-pick-for-dnc-chair-and-a-controversial-one/A story from a slightly more respectable news source would've given you more credibility. And another one, actually laying out his involvement with the Nation of Islam and his explicit denouncement of it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000951.htmlAs for his wildly anti-Semitic remarks, quote them please, or I'm just going to call more B.S. on you. Sorry, the first link is paywalled for me so you'll have to pullquote or find alternative sources. When outlets like WaPo tried to massage his record in his defense, the blogosphere pulled news articles with direct quotes and laid out his history with radical group Nation of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan (and I have to make the assumption that you agree that if his actual involvement with Nation of Islam was contrary to his stated denials, it would be damaging to him and connect him to a group you do not align with. I apologize if you think Nation of Islam is an upstanding group promoting racial harmony ( SPLC on NOI+ Show Spoiler +"[T]he Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't a great man for me as a black person, but he was a great German. Now, I'm not proud of Hitler's evils against Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He raised Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there's a similarity in that we are raising our people up from nothing."
— Louis Farrakhan, radio interview, March 11, 1984 ). Powerline has the timeline stretching for years, sourced from local news articles. Back in 1990, he wrote two articles defending Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Abdul MuhammadShow nested quote +Ellison was born Catholic in Detroit. He states that he converted to Islam as an undergraduate at Wayne State University. As a third-year student at the University of Minnesota Law School in 1989-90, he wrote two columns for the Minnesota Daily under the name "Keith Hakim." In the first, Ellison refers to "Minister Louis Farrakhan," defends Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Abdul Muhammad, and speaks in the voice of a Nation of Islam advocate. In the second, "Hakim" demands reparations for slavery and throws in a demand for an optional separate homeland for American blacks. In February 1990, Ellison participated in sponsoring Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) to speak at the law school on the subject "Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?" Jewish law students met personally with Ellison and appealed to him not to sponsor the speech at the law school; he rejected their appeal, and, as anticipated, Ture gave a notoriously anti-Semitic speech. The Weekly Standard, sourcing his speeches and articles from the Minnesota Daily, also shows his actions in line with NOI like accusing the charges brought against a SLA as retribution against Minister Farrakhan. In 1995, he wrote defending charges that Farrakhan was an anti-semite and therefore not a good role model + Show Spoiler [image] +. In 1997, writing under Keith Ellison-Muhammad, he defended the statement of "Jews are the most racist white people." + Show Spoiler +. His actual statement: + Show Spoiler +. The next year, he wants endorsement from the DFL (Minnesota) for his congressional run, and accepts the affiliation with Nation of Islam + Show Spoiler +. It's not some passing affiliation ("only 18 months" har har). It's of his own doing, and his attempts to deny it after the fact are indicative of how moderate he wants to appear now. He's also protested that he was ignorant of all the issues in NOI. He expects people not to look deeper than his friendly media source coverage of past controversies. I note how you accuse me of never putting effort into actually taking a more objective look. Let me say how discouraging it is to put effort into disabusing you and others of your wrong notions over the course of this entire thread, only to see the goalposts moved and cheap, one-line dismissive remarks on how none of it matters because of X or Y. I'm totally expecting you to twist and claim someone with this long of a history and documented support can also be ignorant of its dark side and only involved himself because of his commitment to racial and religious progress. The fact of his Schumer support and other big-name endorsements should give anyone pause, particularly if you were horrified about the accusations against Bannon of antisemitism, racism, and all the rest. I'm no democrat, but if you are sincere in hoping the party can rebound after DWS leadership, I'd assume conscientious Democrats would have issues with his long history of radicalism and what that would say about the party if he gains this title. I remember how many people claimed Clinton was eminently electable, that her history shows competence and suitability for President (and the same outlets you quote now repeated it constantly), and then how many immediately turned around to claim her figure was the absolute reason she discouraged votes and was considered unsuitable by voters. Here's your chance to support another of the names mentioned for DNC chair.
None of the images that you posted have him saying anything even remotely extremist.
The first clip is a piece where he says, "Farrakhan isn't racist, and is a pillar of the black community. We should have an open and honest dialogue to settle our differences."
For the 2nd and 3rd clip, you demonstrate an astounding level of hypocrisy. You repeatedly and loudly have defended the likes of Trump and Bannon for the same things. For example, you repeatedly proclaimed that Trump wasn't racist or sexist throughout the campaign for the litany of statements he made. Your reasoning basically boiled down to "it isn't technically racist!" and "You need to read it in context!". Your summary of the 2nd clip is the most blatant example of cherry-picking and distorting the narrative.
For the 3rd clip, you constantly defend the likes of Trump and Bannon for being affiliated with individuals. Bannon, as xDaunt was so kindly educated on, has loudly stated that Breitbart, his news outlet, is a platform for the Alt-Right, and yet if I were a betting man I would bet my job on the fact that you would defend Bannon and say he isn't a racist/sexist/homophobe because he is affiliated with a blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic movement. The same exact thing goes for Trump; you constantly defended Trump for having the support of pretty much every discriminatory group in the U.S. like the KKK and other White Nationalist groups, not to mention people like David Duke, the violent and racist supporters at his rallies, and any number of other shady characters he keeps around himself.
Even if, for the sake of argument, I just accept everything you've linked at face value, you have yet to show us anything that he actually said or did that is extremist in-and-of-itself. The only things you have are 1) Vague writings in the defense of NoI leaders that he later explicitly denounced and 2) his affiliation with the organization in general, which, as I've mentioned above, isn't grounds for condemnation based on your own logic and actions throughout this election. This reminds me quite a bit of trying to tie Obama to Rev. Wright and how the Right blew that one out of proportions.
There isn't a shifting of the goal posts here. The problem is that you have a completely different set of standards for your team vs. the team you don't like simply because of your bias.
I also don't know what the reason for hashing this out so thoroughly is. He's obviously not an extremist currently. Furthermore, he's not running for office; he's up for a position that the majority of the country doesn't even know about. He's also clearly not an OG politician in the same vein as Clinton.
|
Say what you will Trump did bring attention to their speech to Pence a lot more then it would have gotten if he hadn't said anything. Entire social universe is now talking about a thing because the president elect willed them to do it.
|
On November 20 2016 03:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 02:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The US vice-president elect, Mike Pence, was booed by a theater audience when he attended the hit hip-hop musical Hamilton in New York on Friday night – and then had a message about protecting diversity delivered to him from the stage after the curtain call.
On Saturday, President-elect Donald Trump accused theatre-goers of having “harassed” Pence, writing on Twitter: “Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen!”
He also demanded an apology: “The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”
On Friday night, as Pence entered the auditorium for the Broadway show at the Richard Rogers Theater, video taken by onlookers and posted to social media picked up some audience members cheering him, then more people booing him.
Pence walked down the aisle towards his seat and waved briefly as people in the theater clearly began to realize who he was. Then the boos began.
The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence. Patrons did not lose sight of the irony of a strong conservative, with a record of opposition against gay rights, attending a hip-hop musical with a pointedly diverse cast was not lost on , as noted in an early report by Variety magazine.
At first it was thought Pence had left the show at the interval, but it later turned out that he had returned to his seat, possibly after the lights went down, at the beginning of the second act in an attempt to minimize disruption. Source Let's see, interrupting a performance by booing the next Vice President of the United States. Turning a musical into a condescending lecture. I'd say this is a great start to the next fundraising season. I mean, did it only apply to Obama when he wanted a show of good faith from those that thought he'd undermine America's institutions? Quick, let's believe the worst of the left's fearful histrionics and repeat them hoping the next administration will "uphold our inalienable rights?" So embarrassing. + Show Spoiler [Burge might've said it best] +I sincerely wonder what the next week will bring. This past week was all about the plague of fake news from distrusted news sites. If it's another week of protests and stories attacking the transition team's performance, it might seal the response to a free and fair election in the minds of the American voter long enough to be remembered in 2018 midterms. Democrats defend many states Trump won, the hardest pulls seem to be IN ND WV MO and MT.
Your understanding of what actually transpired is so incredibly out-of-touch with reality that I can't comprehend how you came to this conclusion.
Edit: Jormundr hit the nail on the head.
|
Conservatives/ the alt-right continue to fail to understand why they are being persecuted for persecuting others. Well, actually I think Pence gets it to some degree though he just doesn't care. But the indignation by the Trump and others is kind of entertaining and ironic all things considered.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 20 2016 04:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
Conservatives/ the alt-right continue to fail to understand why they are being persecuted for persecuting others. Well, actually I think Pence gets it to some degree though he just doesn't care. But the indignation by the Trump and others is kind of entertaining and ironic all things considered.
Meh, I really doubt Trump has a persecution complex. More likely he just likes attention and knows how to get it.
|
On November 20 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote:
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media. When you have to voluntarily dismiss the truth sometimes, and most of the time bend it pretty hard, in order for your alternative narrative to function, then it has some basic flaws. I find all of these attacks against Breitbart and alternative media to be highly amusing because those doing the attacking are demonstrating a tremendous lack of self-awareness regarding the flaws of their preferred news platforms. We just came out of an election where the mainstream/establishment news sources were proven to be catastrophically wrong on a lot of things. Should they be held accountable? Of course not! Instead, we apparently need to go on a witch hunt to silence "fake" news sources. God forbid we trust the people to inform themselves! And why is silencing the opposition the left's first answer to everything? What happened to liberal intellectual curiosity?
How many stories from those sites were posted here during this campaign that were disproved with 1 minute of googling? How many millions of Americans do you reckon still believe Clinton was bribed to sell uranium ore to Russia due to sites like those despite the glaring chronological faults with that story? It still pops up from time to time.
In trying to stick this equivalence between 'alternative media' and actual journalism you are misinterpreting the issue presented. It's not a matter of the former being biased and the latter being neutral, it's not a matter of the latter never being wrong, it's a matter of due diligence. Mainstream media publishes plenty of unsubstantiated stories and one should be skeptical of them, but what they rarely publish, unlike alt-right blogs where it's a daily occurence, is news, facts, statistics, images and interpretations that can be easily verified to be wrong at the time of publication.
Remember the email about oversampling polls that made the rounds on alt-right sites? Even without having any staff that understands the terminology, all Zero Hedge and Drudge had to do to not misinterpret it was to read the attachment on it. I don't think NYT or WaPo, regardless of their distaste of Trump, would have fell for something like that in a million years. Even just a few days ago, Breitbart published a fake MS Painted electoral map (they've changed it in the meantime) claiming Hillary won less than 100 counties. Now that was highly amusing indeed.
|
Trump and Pence actually benefit from this kind of stupid and unorganized mobilization, because booing stupidly, or destroying a few cars during a protest is totally unproductive. If you want to be violent, then be it, but organize, play collective, be intelligent, try to legitimize your actions, or you lose support. The mass don't understand the legitimacy of such behavior ("the man can't watch a show normally now ?").
We have the same idiot with high morals in France : running around, throwing rocks at police men and all, fighting against the "police state" and "facism" (when they can't define it... huh), attacking everything and everyone that does not think as they do (even people who are also on the far left). They are the useful idiots of the right.
1. They didn't interrupt a performance. The performance was over.
In the article it is said that "The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence." so they did interrupt it.
|
So Bannon has been kind enough to clear up his views on the Alt-Right:
He acknowledges that the site is “edgy” but insists it is “vibrant.” He offers his own definition of the alt-right movement and explains how he sees it fitting into Breitbart. “Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.”
But he says Breitbart is also a platform for “libertarians,” Zionists, “the conservative gay community,” “proponents of restrictions on gay marriage,” “economic nationalism” and “populism” and “the anti-establishment.” In other words, the site hosts many views. “We provide an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought—we set it up that way” and the alt-right is “a tiny part of that.” Yes, he concedes, the alt-right has “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones.” He makes clear he has zero tolerance for such views.
All this said, Mr. Bannon explains he’s on sabbatical from Breitbart and has had “nothing to do with the site since August 15,” when he joined the Trump campaign. Now he will take an “extended leave of absence and cut all association with the site while I’m working at the pleasure of the president.” He adds that Breitbart “didn’t get a scoop from the campaign from the minute I took over; they’ve had to scramble like everybody else.”
Source.
A couple observations. First, that definition is kinda ridiculous in that it is completely untethered from the origins of the Alt-Right. Second, my first thought was that it was stupid for milder right wing elements to try to co-opt the term "Alt-Right" because of all of the baggage that is associated with the term. However, upon further reflection and observation, it may be a devilishly smart move. The left clearly doesn't know how to effectively deal with it. Calling this version of the "alt-right" racists sure as shit isn't working and is backfiring hard. Bannon and Co. have basically baited all of their political opponents into a flame war that is destroying the credibility of their opponents.
|
Isn't the alt right, originally, nothing more than a reaction to the rise of identity politics in the left ?
|
I don't really know why we're making a science out of this, it's simply the American version of white nationalism and neo-nazism. It's a little more disorganised because the United States has no real history of it and because it's driven by internet memes, but that's basically what it is.
|
On November 20 2016 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:
Isn't the alt right, originally, nothing more than a reaction to the rise of identity politics in the left ?
Partially, but it's probably more accurate to say that it started as a collection of disaffected conservatives in the wake of Bush's presidency.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 20 2016 04:28 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2016 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote:
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media. When you have to voluntarily dismiss the truth sometimes, and most of the time bend it pretty hard, in order for your alternative narrative to function, then it has some basic flaws. I find all of these attacks against Breitbart and alternative media to be highly amusing because those doing the attacking are demonstrating a tremendous lack of self-awareness regarding the flaws of their preferred news platforms. We just came out of an election where the mainstream/establishment news sources were proven to be catastrophically wrong on a lot of things. Should they be held accountable? Of course not! Instead, we apparently need to go on a witch hunt to silence "fake" news sources. God forbid we trust the people to inform themselves! And why is silencing the opposition the left's first answer to everything? What happened to liberal intellectual curiosity? How many stories from those sites were posted here during this campaign that were disproved with 1 minute of googling? How many millions of Americans do you reckon still believe Clinton was bribed to sell uranium ore to Russia due to sites like those despite the glaring chronological faults with that story? It still pops up from time to time. In trying to stick this equivalence between 'alternative media' and actual journalism you are misinterpreting the issue presented. It's not a matter of the former being biased and the latter being neutral, it's not a matter of the latter never being wrong, it's a matter of due diligence. Mainstream media publishes plenty of unsubstantiated stories and one should be skeptical of them, but what they rarely publish, unlike alt-right blogs where it's a daily occurence, is news, facts, statistics, images and interpretations that can be easily verified to be wrong at the time of publication. Remember the email about oversampling polls that made the rounds on alt-right sites? Even without having any staff that understands the terminology, all Zero Hedge and Drudge had to do to not misinterpret it was to read the attachment on it. I don't think NYT or WaPo, regardless of their distaste of Trump, would have fell for something like that in a million years. Even just a few days ago, Breitbart published a fake MS Painted electoral map (they've changed it in the meantime) claiming Hillary won less than 100 counties. Now that was highly amusing indeed.
The reporting by Breitbart on the uranium deal is not a problem.
Stories on the Uranium One deal likewise ran in the mainstream media, and despite the sensationalism of the initial claims, I still have strong reservations about what happened in the Rosatom purchase of Uranium One. Hillary Clinton had the right to lay down obstacle to the deal in the CFIUS review and did not. This only played into the continuous trail of circumstantial but very curious pattern that reeks around the Clintons. Only this time, Clintons were playing with national security interests and foreign powers.
The Clinton's apparent pay to play problem is also one of Pence's pay to play problems, but Pence operated at a much smaller scale.
|
On November 20 2016 05:12 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 04:28 Dan HH wrote:On November 20 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2016 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote:
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media. When you have to voluntarily dismiss the truth sometimes, and most of the time bend it pretty hard, in order for your alternative narrative to function, then it has some basic flaws. I find all of these attacks against Breitbart and alternative media to be highly amusing because those doing the attacking are demonstrating a tremendous lack of self-awareness regarding the flaws of their preferred news platforms. We just came out of an election where the mainstream/establishment news sources were proven to be catastrophically wrong on a lot of things. Should they be held accountable? Of course not! Instead, we apparently need to go on a witch hunt to silence "fake" news sources. God forbid we trust the people to inform themselves! And why is silencing the opposition the left's first answer to everything? What happened to liberal intellectual curiosity? How many stories from those sites were posted here during this campaign that were disproved with 1 minute of googling? How many millions of Americans do you reckon still believe Clinton was bribed to sell uranium ore to Russia due to sites like those despite the glaring chronological faults with that story? It still pops up from time to time. In trying to stick this equivalence between 'alternative media' and actual journalism you are misinterpreting the issue presented. It's not a matter of the former being biased and the latter being neutral, it's not a matter of the latter never being wrong, it's a matter of due diligence. Mainstream media publishes plenty of unsubstantiated stories and one should be skeptical of them, but what they rarely publish, unlike alt-right blogs where it's a daily occurence, is news, facts, statistics, images and interpretations that can be easily verified to be wrong at the time of publication. Remember the email about oversampling polls that made the rounds on alt-right sites? Even without having any staff that understands the terminology, all Zero Hedge and Drudge had to do to not misinterpret it was to read the attachment on it. I don't think NYT or WaPo, regardless of their distaste of Trump, would have fell for something like that in a million years. Even just a few days ago, Breitbart published a fake MS Painted electoral map (they've changed it in the meantime) claiming Hillary won less than 100 counties. Now that was highly amusing indeed. The reporting by Breitbart on the uranium deal is not a problem. Stories on the Uranium One deal likewise ran in the mainstream media, and despite the sensationalism of the initial claims, I still have strong reservations about what happened in the Rosatom purchase of Uranium One. Hillary Clinton had the right to lay down obstacle to the deal in the CFIUS review and did not. This only played into the continuous trail of circumstantial but very curious pattern that reeks around the Clintons. Only this time, Clintons were playing with national security interests and foreign powers. The Clinton's apparent pay to play problem is also one of Pence's pay to play problems, but Pence operated at a much smaller scale.
It will be interesting to see whether the Clinton Foundation decreases in size and scope following Hillary's election loss. The Clintons' influence has taken a huge hit.
|
I think it is important to make difference between the current alt-right and the beginning of alt-right much like how the current wave of feminism is so much more different than a traditional feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i1.wp.com/powerline.wpengine.com/ed-assets/2006/09/EllisonArticle3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1.wp.com/powerline.wpengine.com/ed-assets/2006/09/StribArticle292.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i2.wp.com/powerline.wpengine.com/ed-assets/2006/09/EllisonStatememt34.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i0.wp.com/powerline.wpengine.com/ed-assets/2006/09/Insight339.jpg)
