It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Steve Bannons appointment does NOT show Trump is a racist

page: 2
29
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
If you're not a racist then why would you ever appoint a openly racist member to your cabinet? The cover of all people are inherently good is Ocean Front Property.

Birds of a feather flock together.

I would be concerned with Bannon's appointment that he would inspired White National's across the world to rise in a Fifth Reich move.

I would seriously watch where Bannon's influence is being used at around the world and if those populations are inherently seeded in white nationalism then a problem bigger than ISIS could be well on the way.




posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
still going on and on about the election
get over it



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: cihanpanda
still going on and on about the election
get over it


NO



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Sorry I got caught up posting a rather long post about the "Female Stranger" grave in Alexandria, Va!


If you want to call Bannon out on what he did with Breitbart, fine. But then to be fair you must also call out every democrat for associating with the mainstream liberal press that has slandered, demeaned and fear mongered about white people, straights, religious people, men and many other groups


I had to mull this over for a while. It's a difficult topic to debate because a lot of it will come down to perception. As I said earlier, I believe the approach to Trump supporters in the media and by the Dems, particularly the Clinton campaign and of course Clinton herself, was definitely biased toward painting far far too many as "deplorables."

For many people, I'm sure that only reinforced what they'd suspected all along. They knew it too and you could see it in the reversal many in the media did not days after the election but within mere MINUTES of it becoming clear that Trump had won.

However, I don't see it as part of some ongoing open season on whites, straights and Christians so much as unfair ridicule of people supporting Trump. That's my perception. I'm a straight white male (atheist though raised Catholic and married to a Catholic) and I certainly don't have any self-hatred.

I do see people in the media, particular pundits, who do say some things that I take offense to but that comes from all sides. I find Giuliani to be offensive as hell for instance. I also find it repulsive when I hear the CRT drones in interviews discussing all the rules for protesting and "safe spaces." I really find most all conversation about "cultural appropriation" to be ridiculous, unrealistic and unnecessarily divisive.

As far as Breitbart and Bannon go, my opinion is that it's a unique case in that Breitbart is deliberately polemic. That was a strategy and Bannon owns it. Whether or not he is really the antisemitic asshole his wife made him out to be during their divorce and regardless of how much of the editorial decisions were about attracting an audience or an expression of his own ideology, that's the direction he plotted long ago.

Nobody made him say that Breitbart was the "home of the alt-right." It wasn't a lamentation, it wasn't something he wished wasn't the case, it wasn't something that he tolerated for ad revenue — he reveled in it.

If you want to compare a similar person and appointment in the Obama administration, I'd be interested to know about it. Maybe I'm ignoring something? Hell, maybe I'm wrong about everything. It's been a long damn election and the post election hasn't been a whole helluva lot better thus far.

edit on 2016-11-15 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I honestly haven't given the SPLC that much thought recently because it's so derided by the right that it's only ever worth using as a third or fourth source of information if that.

To your point and that made in the page you cited, there's definitely unsavory self-serving motivations behind a lot of things that claim to be for the common good. For instance, I don't have much love for Al Sharpton at all. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks did some good but I my opinion of WL soured YEARS ago. Then there are groups like Judicial Watch.

Would you cite anything from Judicial Watch even though they have a clear partisan agenda or would you cite the documents they obtain from a FOIA request but leave out their commentary? For me, in terms of SPLC, I might use it as a jumping off point to track down more information but I'm not going to say, "SPLC classified so-and-so as a hate group!"

That seems to be the main point of contention doesn't it? Not that SPLC provides false data in its profiles but that it shows bias in it's classifications?



new topics

top topics
 
29
<< 1   >>

log in

join