Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

red ears

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So do you think people who oppose kkk members and nwo nazis and white supremacists should stand there and get atracked ? If people attack you you have the right to fight back.

In any of the videos I've seen over the last year at various right leaning, free speech and trump rallies antifa have initiated the violence, assaulting, pepper spraying etc. Nobody should be using violence for political means.

frag420

red ears wrote: »

In any of the videos I've seen over the last year at various right leaning, free speech and trump rallies antifa have initiated the violence, assaulting, pepper spraying etc. Nobody should be using violence for political means.

Links with proof of this if you don't mind....

StringerBell

Jayop wrote: »

Wow. That's a hell of a strongly worded letter.

He doesn't have much time for Catholics though does Mitt...:)

He is just making the point that the ones (hispanics, jews, blacks etc) hated most by the white, protestant supremacists are as American as they are. He could have thrown Catholics in with the hispanic, black, Jew.

The KKK et al wouldn't have much time for Catholics though

StringerBell

Got to give him one thing though, nobody talking about Russia right now

Water John

Red Ears are exactly that, from telling porkies. Look at the video of Fri night march. Don't see the people standing by the monument instigating any violence only the KKK white boys.

Trent Houseboat

StringerBell wrote: »

Got to give him one thing though, nobody talking about Russia right now

Do you think Meuller has forgotten about the investigation he's in charge of?

StringerBell

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Do you think Meuller has forgotten about the investigation he's in charge of?

I'd be pretty confident he hasn't, you?

red ears

Water John wrote: »

Red Ears are exactly that, from telling porkies. Look at the video of Fri night march. Don't see the people standing by the monument instigating any violence only the KKK white boys.

There is a video of the torch holding white nationalists totally surrounding antifa protesters and outnumbering them significantly yet they did not touch one of them.

WinnyThePoo

red ears wrote: »

There is a video of the torch holding white nationalists totally surrounding antifa protesters and outnumbering them significantly yet they did not touch one of them.

Is there? . Why don't you link it?.

StringerBell

red ears wrote: »

There is a video of the torch holding white nationalists totally surrounding antifa protesters and outnumbering them significantly yet they did not touch one of them.

They are not nationalist, they are supremacist. They can see the benefit of lying about the term, but why do you feel the need? The NSM ditched the Swastika to become more palatable to the mainstream, this is admitted by Jeff Shoep, no secret. Course, they replaced with another symbol used by the Nazi's in WW2, this among many other lies and things said in public to attempt to portray a certain image while always revealing themselves for exactly what they are because they cannot help it.

A short clip featuring Shoep, illustrating what I have said already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5-V2-CmsRY

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vy7BiJPLfs

There is an unedited version of the vid too, but this one amused me more. The sad thing though is genuinely this guy Cantwell is a true believer. He truly believes the **** he spouts, and he will continue to convert others who are vulnerable to this kind of rhetoric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyeTj002DCo

That's his own vid,unedited.

What strikes me about Cantwell, is that I think if you were to take race out of the equation he is probably not that bad a guy, (bear with me!) how to get that deep rooted hatred he and his like have inside them out of him is the problem facing America and the world in general. Misguided animosity, it ruins their lives, it damages their families, friends and eventual victims.

There will always be disaffected youth to prey on, vulnerable people to manipulate and corrupt while there is someone who can profit from it. I don't know how Trump, or anybody can actually solve that problem but I do know that giving them a platform, giving them the credibility of tacit, at the very least, approval of the President of the United States is not only not the way to deal with the problem, it makes it that much worse.

There are elements on the left, Antifa (they have been around in the UK longer then the US) that go too far also, that are often actually despite the intentions part of the problem these days also but it can never be overstated, they are the reaction, they are not the primary cause. While they are certainly at fault for their part they would not exist without aggression from the other side. They would not have been created.

It is a false equivalence to portray them as being equal parts of a bigger problem. One would not even exist if not for the other.

I remember watching Welcome to Leith a year or so ago, and while I acknowledge violence is never the answer it is impossible for me not to understand why ordinary people would react out of fear if nothing else.

Samaris

It is there, I've seen that too.

I am not sure why it is being held up as a symbol of the restraint of the white supremacists that they're visible in a picture surrounding a group of counter-protesters (since the image does not, as I recall, show any proof that they are Antifa, but rather just ordinary people protesting) and trying to intimidate them with large numbers and torches, mind you.

Like.."good KKK, you only attempted intimidation and didn't beat them up." The bar is being set surprisingly low for them, but I suppose given their history, it is unusual indeed.

Edit: And yeah, I'm not falling into the weasel-wording of "white nationalists", not least since the term doesn't actually make much sense. What white nation? America is a nation of Americans, not just the white ones. White bloody supremacists as that is what they are.

Don't fall for weaselling, folks.

Hande hoche!

StringerBell wrote: »

Got to give him one thing though, nobody talking about Russia right now

The North Korea story also seems to have dropped off the radar.

Trent Houseboat

StringerBell wrote: »

I'd be pretty confident he hasn't, you?

I'm quite sure he hasn't too. But your post seemed like another suggestion of seven dimensional chess. The Russia investigation continues and will be news again if there are any more revelations. This isn't the campaign where in the interest of "balance" the media follow up all discussion of his gob****ery talking about emails. Nobody has forgotten about Russia.

Samaris

Hande hoche! wrote: »

The North Korea story also seems to have dropped off the radar.

China banged sanctions on North Korea and it seems to have shut Kim up for a bit. I suspect that one would have fallen off the front page anyway.

The investigation is still going on though, and is likely to be for some time, so it's going to be something that the media comes back to when there isn't something bigger or more newsworthy going on. I'd say it'll spring back up within the next couple of weeks if a move is made/someone is subpoenaed/a Trump starts complaining on Twitter (father, son or Other), depending on what the Nazis get up to in the meantime or any other out-of-left-field events.

aloyisious

I'm looking at SB's departure and wonder is it down to John Kelly bringing constitutional sense and order back to the White House, and was a sign of it's coming the appointment of the new White House Media unit? I couldn't see SB likming that new appointment idea, he won't be around in the background messing things up.

I'd like to think that constitutional political constraints was becoming more and more something Don is having to accept. If that does turn out to be true, then it might mean the partnership of Don and John has a lessening of the chances that Mike Pence may be called upon to fill a vacant office.

Samaris

I dunno, I think Bannon was finding himself a bit restricted by the "pleasure of the President" in what mischief he could get up to. Trump developed a rapid antipathy to potential competition in "the ratings (which are so massive)" so Bannon's influence was likely severely curtailed. Kelly does appear to be attempting to military discipline the lot of them, but the one person he will have trouble doing that with is Trump himself, because Trump does not appear to be able to sit down and shut up even when it is in his best interests and certainly not when it's merely in the interests of his allies.

By the way, and brief off-topic question because I'm curious every time I see your name - is it pronounced "alo-wish-us" or "alloy-see-us" there?

humberklog

I think Bannon's move back to Breitbart is to cement their Alt Right base support (and try to regain lost support) via this media outlet and other fringe web sites. This is what Bannon's good at.

Trump's domestic message has got clearer in the last week and some supporters might be getting spooked and finding it harder to defend him.

Bannon left the tent but he's still p!ssing in the same direction.

I think it's a more worrisome situation (for the moderate right, centrists and left wing) with Bannon back in the media.
Everyone that disagrees or interferes with Trump/Bannon's plans is going to be fair game- especially those closest to the presidency.

Samaris

May not be a bad thing. Trump administration as it stands is, to borrow gaming terms, Chaotic Evil. And the chaos is working against them getting anything done. Kelly seems to be a sane sort (for a guy who's willing to work closely with the League of Incompetent Evil).

Frankly, I am not sure from a domestic policy perspective that their getting more competent is actually a good thing in the long run. So far, the administration is a bit self-limiting in terms of long-term damage it can do, even if they are causing absolute sh*tstorms in the short term. Bannon gleefully flinging potshots from the sidelines will probably mostly do more damage to the credibility of their own side. His taking potshots at democrats doesn't really matter that much when you take into account that the people reading Breitbart are inclined to believe that the Democratic party is the devil's own lunchbox anyway.

May stir up more supremacists though. Bannon may have condemned the alt-right Nazi portion of Trump's base, but I'll wait and see what he does over a one-off comment calling them dumb. And he said himself that stirring up racial tensions for people to focus on works in favour of the administration shoving through stuff. So that might be a continuing problem.

Skyte

Honestly, I thought Trump would be a little more competent than this. Like, not "good president" competent, but "can follow his staff's instructions" competent. I was worried he was going to let the senate Republicans pass whatever legislation they wanted, but holy **** they can't even manage that.

HivemindXX

Here's a quote from The Telegraph about Bannon. 'He' is Bannon btw.

He added: “I feel jacked up. Now I’ve got my hands back on my weapons,” he added as he vowed “Bannon the barbarian” would crush the opposition.
"There’s no doubt. I built a

---

ng machine at Breitbart. And now I’m about to go back, knowing what I know, and we’re about to rev that machine up. And rev it up we will do.”
His loyalty to Donald Trump remained undimmed.
“If there’s any confusion out there, let me clear it up: I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents -- on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,” he told Bloomberg.

So that completely sounds like the sort of thing you'd expect the ruler of a legitimate news organisation to say right?

StringerBell

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I'm quite sure he hasn't too. But your post seemed like another suggestion of seven dimensional chess. The Russia investigation continues and will be news again if there are any more revelations. This isn't the campaign where in the interest of "balance" the media follow up all discussion of his gob****ery talking about emails. Nobody has forgotten about Russia.

Sorry you took it up wrong.

Samaris

HivemindXX wrote: »

Here's a quote from The Telegraph about Bannon. 'He' is Bannon btw.



So that completely sounds like the sort of thing you'd expect the ruler of a legitimate news organisation to say right?

Yeeah...every so often someone says something that just reinforces the "this is not goddamn normal" aspects of it all.

Akrasia

Samaris wrote: »

I dunno, I think Bannon was finding himself a bit restricted by the "pleasure of the President" in what mischief he could get up to. Trump developed a rapid antipathy to potential competition in "the ratings (which are so massive)" so Bannon's influence was likely severely curtailed. Kelly does appear to be attempting to military discipline the lot of them, but the one person he will have trouble doing that with is Trump himself, because Trump does not appear to be able to sit down and shut up even when it is in his best interests and certainly not when it's merely in the interests of his allies.

By the way, and brief off-topic question because I'm curious every time I see your name - is it pronounced "alo-wish-us" or "alloy-see-us" there?

It's very plausible that Bannon came up with a soap opera row between himself and Trump so that Trump could fire him and then whatever Bannon does in the background to support the policies he wants implemented, Trump can say 'nothing to do with me, I fired the guy'

pitifulgod

Akrasia wrote: »

It's very plausible that Bannon came up with a soap opera row between himself and Trump so that Trump could fire him and then whatever Bannon does in the background to support the policies he wants implemented, Trump can say 'nothing to do with me, I fired the guy'

Basically like the role Roger Stone fulfills as well. He got to rally with the likes of Alex Jones and wasn't in team.

Hande hoche!

pitifulgod wrote: »

Basically like the role Roger Stone fulfills as well. He got to rally with the likes of Alex Jones and wasn't in team.

Very apt. View Bannon's departure as akin to Stone rather than Rence Priebus.

Billy86

red ears wrote: »

In any of the videos I've seen over the last year at various right leaning, free speech and trump rallies antifa have initiated the violence, assaulting, pepper spraying etc. Nobody should be using violence for political means.

Oh really?

You must have missed the unprovoked attack that got so much attention because Trump was egging his fans on at the time, openly calling on them to assault protesters and that he would cover their legal fees.

And you must have missed Trump supporters continuing this carry on and shoving protesters at rallies, which they later said Trump inspired them to do:

Or how Trump supporters again was eager to instigate violence as Trump egged him on about how much 'fun' he was having:

The fact is Trump fans do start violence, plenty of it, and they've got The Leader there egging them on about "what we used to do with protesters", "I'll pay your legals fees", "isn't this so much fun?" and so on and so on. I have no doubts what those defending Trump and his supporters would say if this was Obama doing the same with Muslims and black people at rallies and speeches.

aloyisious

Samaris wrote: »

I dunno, I think Bannon was finding himself a bit restricted by the "pleasure of the President" in what mischief he could get up to. Trump developed a rapid antipathy to potential competition in "the ratings (which are so massive)" so Bannon's influence was likely severely curtailed. Kelly does appear to be attempting to military discipline the lot of them, but the one person he will have trouble doing that with is Trump himself, because Trump does not appear to be able to sit down and shut up even when it is in his best interests and certainly not when it's merely in the interests of his allies.

By the way, and brief off-topic question because I'm curious every time I see your name - is it pronounced "alo-wish-us" or "alloy-see-us" there?

I'm hoping that Don will raise his blinkers and see JK is not interested in egos but the future of the US, and not a "who's the boss" session every day.

I'd pronounce it al - o - ish - us..... but at speed it's not vocally so broken up, a random choice as password.

aloyisious

HivemindXX wrote: »

Here's a quote from The Telegraph about Bannon. 'He' is Bannon btw.

His loyalty to Donald Trump remained undimmed.
“If there’s any confusion out there, let me clear it up: I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents -- on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,” he told Bloomberg.


So that completely sounds like the sort of thing you'd expect the ruler of a legitimate news organisation to say right?

Capitol Hill on a sitting break now, so will he be targetting GOP and/or Dems there in their absence for fake news headline purposes?

Some-one mentioned Don's financial backers [election etc-wise earlier here, but as don't know if they'll extend their kindness to SB's personal project, I won't mention them]. There's this link about Breitbart and it's advertising income.... [most print media are having a bad time getting advertising income]... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjA65-n8uPVAhXDIMAKHQzDCCYQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fbusiness%2Fwp%2F2017%2F06%2F08%2Fbreitbart-lost-90-percent-of-its-advertisers-in-two-months-whos-still-there%2F&usg=AFQjCNGFKM24qtIkX1lnYikz95VMmWylNg

MadYaker

I'd imagine Bannon is simply going to try and fight against the almost constant negative coverage that Trump receives from the media. Not even Fox News have his back all the time.

jackrobert1995

Nody wrote: »

Already covered this before; WHITE Supremacists groups are by far the highest source of domestic terorrism by a longshot and are in no way even close to the number of attacks that BLM/AntiFA performs and hence they should in no way be claimed to be equal in their threat level. You can find the full article with further details and proof here.

From the article you're quoting:

116 deaths from Islamic terror attacks, 109 from far right attacks, conveniently taken from the 12th of September, 2001 onwards to exclude 9/11. Being far right doesn't equate to being a white supremacist. Looking at the terror attacks from the far right, many explanations for the attacks were to do with far right ideology, e.g. one of them was against planned parenthood. Tell me, how does a terror attack in relation to planned parenthood equate to white supremacy? You're inflating your statistics with irrelevant facts to suit your narrative. Now, further quoting your article, "8 people where killed by black separatist/ supremacist".... but we'll ignore that. This is all obviously excluding the 500 killings of white people attributed to blacks, and the 229 black lives taken by white killers (in 2015 alone)... and all the other years for that matter as this isn't classified as domestic terrorism as it has to be politically motivated (but is terrorist in nature).

Now I'm not saying white supremacy isn't a problem, it obviously is. I've no doubt that many of the 109 deaths from far right attacks were white supremacist in nature. But a direct quote from your article: "It’s not just a bunch of white supremacist in white hoods". Anyway, you're naive if you think white supremacy is the greatest threat. As for Antifa and BLM, their domestic terrorists because they literally fit the definition of domestic terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security labeled Antifa’s actions as “domestic terrorism.” Forgive me if I take their word over yours. As for BLM, they incite civil unrest, their anti-police and anti-semetic. They have caused tens of millions worth of damage across America, damage goes hand in hand with violence. Plus, they're actions are very similar in nature to Antifa.

everlast75

Apparently Trump took 36 minutes and 3 tweets before he spelled "heal" correctly!

20Cent

Says protesters in Boston look like anti police agitators, two hours later applauds them for standing up against bigotry and hate.

aloyisious

20Cent wrote: »

Says protesters in Boston look like anti police agitators, two hours later applauds them for standing up against bigotry and hate.

Fox News mentioned that description as well in its report on the event, and that the event was a conservative pro free-speech, that the O/P's that showed up in a counter-demo ran away when they saw the numbers there. The Boston mayor and Chief of Police seem happy with the peaceful outcome.

In other Fox News, they report that SB is targetting the GOP for not helping the president..... It looks like he's seem that flogging the Dems for what's happened since Jan is like flogging a dead horse: no longer avoiding the real cause, the elephant on the hill.

I've been looking at the still/profile shaded image of Don that Fox is using regularly on items mentioning Don when they don't use video footage. It's a reduced-colour image and I reckon [maybe my imagination] it's ever so slightly tending towards the well-known profile image of JFK in tone and angle.

Samaris

jackrobert1995 wrote: »

From the article you're quoting:

116 deaths from Islamic terror attacks, 109 from far right attacks, conveniently taken from the 12th of September, 2001 onwards to exclude 9/11. Being far right doesn't equate to being a white supremacist. Looking at the terror attacks from the far right, many explanations for the attacks were to do with far right ideology, e.g. one of them was against planned parenthood. Tell me, how does a terror attack in relation to planned parenthood equate to white supremacy? You're inflating your statistics with irrelevant facts to suit your narrative. Now, further quoting your article, "8 people where killed by black separatist/ supremacist".... but we'll ignore that. This is all obviously excluding the 500 killings of white people attributed to blacks, and the 229 black lives taken by white killers (in 2015 alone)... and all the other years for that matter as this isn't classified as domestic terrorism as it has to be politically motivated (but is terrorist in nature).

Nody was incorrect about it being white supremacist only, these are extreme right wing vs extreme left wing vs extreme Islamist, etcetera.

Yes, there are various reasons, but it still works out that the majority of attacks that have caused deaths or injuries have been from the far right. Right at the moment, we're seeing an uptick in the white supremacist part of it, but having gone through a lot of back cases, white supremacism specifically counts for a good deal of them along with a few religious ones, Planned Parenthood etcetera. This graph has been brought up before noting that.

Yes, it discounts the sheer number of deaths from 9/11 as it is a wild outlier in terms of weighting the statistics. Stats become a bit meaningless if you want to say that 3,200 people were killed due to terrorism, but 99% of that was in one attack, but we can include it as one incident of Islamic terrorism if you want. I think it is disingenuous to count by death toll anyway because that is more counting "which side are more successful at it" over "which ideology is inspiring more awful events". By the way, afaik, the black supremacists tend to be lumped in with the left, despite racial supremacy not being a particularly liberal ideal, so they get a bit shafted on that. Still and all, counts against the far left wing, as does PETA, environmental extremists and anarchists, which Antifa leans more towards than traditional left-wing ideologies. Still, there's overlap, so it's closer to left than right.

jackrobert1995 wrote: »

Now I'm not saying white supremacy isn't a problem, it obviously is. I've no doubt that many of the 109 deaths from far right attacks were white supremacist in nature. But a direct quote from your article: "It’s not just a bunch of white supremacist in white hoods". Anyway, you're naive if you think white supremacy is the greatest threat. As for Antifa and BLM, their domestic terrorists because they literally fit the definition of domestic terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security labeled Antifa’s actions as “domestic terrorism.” Forgive me if I take their word over yours. As for BLM, they incite civil unrest, their anti-police and anti-semetic. They have caused tens of millions worth of damage across America, damage goes hand in hand with violence. Plus, they're actions are very similar in nature to Antifa.

Wait, so Antifa and BLM (?) count as domestic terrorists but the KKK don't? The exponentially greater number of right-wing extremist attacks aren't as important as the so far tiny number of left-wing extremist attacks and so Antifa and BLM (who are not a domestic terrorist anything) are the greater threat? BLM are protesters from many small groups under an umbrella label and have been responsible for very little in the way of violence and extremism so far. And when someone amongst their people has done something, various leaders have condemned it, unlike the leaders of the KKK and the white supremacists who lauded it.

This is whataboutery. Antifa have been condemned although fortunately they have caused no deaths yet (but could, because violence gets out of hand very fast, so don't say I'm supporting them). But when a bloody white supremacist murders a peaceful counter-protester while trying to murder a bunch more, it's "oh, but Antifa!".

It's nuts. It really is.

Edit: ...Perhaps unsurprisingly, I thought this was the Left Wing vs Right Wing clashes thread. In the interests of not derailing further (but I put a fair amount of time into that so I'm not deleting it without being told to :P), I'm going back to Trump now and other-thread stuff can stay there.

Leroy42

What is peoples reading of Bannon leaving the WH? It is being reported as he was fired, yet other reports are saying he handed in a letter of resignation on 7th August.

Coupled with that he walk straight back into Briebart News and has signalled that he intends to target the "West-Wing Democrats".

So is it a mutual decision so that Bannon can cause more problems from Briebart, but surely he could have done that whilst still in the WH?

Was he fired by Trump? If so why? Bannon carries certain supporters with him, supporters and plans that got Trump elected. Why would Trump get rid of him now?

I don't see any sense in it. Trump will possibly lose support from the alt-right. If Bannon stays true to both his words and his previous then people like Jared and Ivanka, Kelly, HR McMaster are going to come under massive attack from Briebart, which will only hurt the WH and Trump.

Water John

Looks like saving face for Bannon all round. Ending back in the job you had 12 months ago, having been principal advisor to the POTUS is a real slap of a wet fish in the face, whatever way they want to dress it up.

Manic Moran

Wait, so Antifa and BLM (?) count as domestic terrorists but the KKK don't?

It is a good question, so I did some brief looking around. As an organization, I can't find any notable acts of violence by the KKK in the last 20 years. They may be intimidating, but as a group, they seem to be generally behaving themselves and acting within the law. Most of the racist-related violence has been carried out by members of the Aryan Brotherhood or whatever, and even that may be more 'hate crime' than 'political motivation'.

[Edit: Apparently also the "Klan" is not a unitary organization, there are some forty different KKKs in the US, many of which have no history of violence at all. As a result, it adds another difficulty to assigning a legal label to them]

Since Antifa exists by definition to counter a political ideology (I.e, fascism), they certainly meet the political requirement of most definitions of terrorism, so if they use violence as well, the definition seems to match.

Akrasia

Water John wrote: »

Looks like saving face for Bannon all round. Ending back in the job you had 12 months ago, having been principal advisor to the POTUS is a real slap of a wet fish in the face, whatever way they want to dress it up.

I don't know about that.

Bannon said before that he didn't expect to see out Trump's first term because he saw himself as an agent of chaos.

His plan was to go all out and try to get as much done as he could before he steps down from that role.

Going back to breitbart, he's not just stepping into an old job. He's got way more power now than ever before. His platform is much bigger than the fringe 'alt right' that he appealed to before the election, and he has inside information that will be invaluable to him and Breitbart.

Bannon has had almost 8 months of access to the most classified intelligence, and now he's going straight into a media role.

Water John

Not at all. It's a dressed up failure. Having the ear of the President of the US was the pinnacle of hie effort to achieve chaos/change. It failed, precisely because of Trump's chaos/failure. Leaving, with his tail between his legs.
He can go back to shouting all he likes.

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

Wait, so Antifa and BLM (?) count as domestic terrorists but the KKK don't?

Here's something that was pointed out months ago, Trump has been refusing money to tackle white supremacism and has been trying to get them taken off of terror lists since more or less as he took office.

Charlottesville: Donald Trump quietly slashed funds to groups fighting white supremacy months ago

Donald Trump's decision to slash funding to counter right-wing extremism in the US is facing fresh scrutiny in the wake of the Charlottesville violence that left three people dead.

The US President froze $10 million (£7.7m) of grants destined to fight violent extremism in the US back in May.

More than 30 organisations had been pegged by former President Barack Obama’s office to receive the funding, but the White House put the grants on hold pending review soon after Mr Trump took office.

Former white supremacist Chuck Leek, who has since become a volunteer with Life After Hate - one of the organisations that was due to receive government funding - warned at the time that white supremacy in the US was becoming more active.

Feb 2nd: Donald Trump administration 'wants to cut white supremacism from counter-extremism programme'

Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly pushing to erase neo-Nazis and white supremacists from the US government’s counter-extremism programme by moving it to focus exclusively on Islamist terrorism.

American officials briefed on the proposed changes told Reuters the Countering Violent Extremism (DVE) initiative could be renamed to “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism”.

The reclassification would remove its work combating far-right attacks and mass shootings, such as the massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston, which are rarely classified as terrorism by American authorities.

Billy86

Water John wrote: »

Not at all. It's a dressed up failure. Having the ear of the President of the US was the pinnacle of hie effort to achieve chaos/change. It failed, precisely because of Trump's chaos/failure. Leaving, with his tail between his legs.
He can go back to shouting all he likes.

...with everyone completely aware of how useless and ineffectual he is at actually getting stuff done in government himself.

Water John

Would think the Alt right thing has now peaked. The 40K marching in Boston along with the police response there, has seen to that.

They can go back to their keyboards and stop impinging on the real lives of people.

Billy86

Water John wrote: »

Would think the Alt right thing has now peaked. The 40K marching in Boston along with the police response there, has seen to that.

They can go back to their keyboards and stop impinging on the real lives of people.

That's one area where I fear you're wrong, one of the central tenants of the alt right is "you are always the victim and it is never your fault" which I feel Boston might even spur on more than Charlottesville. I reckon we'll see them go more extreme than this to try and provoke a further reason. A little like ISIS, who they funny enough share some recruitment and retention techniques with.

Bluefoam

Water John wrote: »

Would think the Alt right thing has now peaked. The 40K marching in Boston along with the police response there, has seen to that.

They can go back to their keyboards and stop impinging on the real lives of people.

I think the past week has been good advertising for them... anyone on the sideline, or wanting to get involved now has a legitimate (according to their President) platform...

I believe that America is intrinsically racist and want to go back to the bad old days....

Water John

Charlottesville was the first time recently they really physically showed their faces and many of them have had quite negative reactions in the communities they come from. Boston and their miserable turnout will see them go back more underground.
Little can be done about changing their mentality.

rossie1977

The fact the far right choose Boston one of the most liberal places in America where Clinton won 80% of the vote in the last election and Trump just 17% shows how brazen these guys have become.

aloyisious

Boston has become a scene of anti-jewish vandalism twice this summer and it's historical connect to the 1776 revolution pushes it up the ladder of battleground importance.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwixm7SC_OXVAhUkCsAKHb7GDNcQFgg4MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F08%2F15%2Fus%2Fholocaust-memorial-boston.html%3Fmcubz%3D0&usg=AFQjCNHTdjFLNZNOcz7oHBHpy3iQgJWxQg

One of the good things that happened in Charlottesville is that the well armed party of civilians that rallied there did not have an excuse to defend themselves with their hardware.

StringerBell

On Bannon, I think it is apparent he can be better for the administration working from the outside, it isn't like he and Trump are going to lose each others phone numbers because he isn't an official member of the administration.

He is less constrained again now, more freedom to wage his kind of war without it tarnishing the administration in an official capacity.

Something that should not be overlooked.

InTheTrees

Trump is going to address the nation tomorrow. Supposedly about Afghanistan, but it seems strange. This is why Pence cut short his south american tour which was unusual. And apparently Pence has cancelled engagements for the rests of the week. And this is about Afghanistan? Has trump even mentioned the place before and now he's addressing he nation?

Is it too much to hope trump might resign tomorrow?

The other theory s that he's going to turn over the entire afgan war to Betsy DeVos's brother to run using contractors.

Samaris

Afghanistan is an announcement I'm dreading a bit. It has come up before. Trump's had the leaders of two major private military contractors (one of which is owned by the same guy that owns Cambridge Analytica, btw, because this has all gotten more incestuous than Game of Thrones) in for the past month or two discussing options on privatising the war in Afghanistan. I don't think this is a theory, as much as I'd wish it was, they're pretty serious on it.

This cannot end well.