Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:06 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,744
White, grey, and alt-white.
  #102  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:19 PM
Bayard Bayard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Okay, I'm confused--do I root for Breitbart now?
Bannon must have a ton of dirt on the inner workings of the White House. He must know where all the bodies are buried. I guess we'll never know for sure, though. A man with Bannon's deep respect for American institutions and governance would never reveal classified or damaging information just to undermine the state.

Last edited by Bayard; 08-18-2017 at 02:20 PM.
  #103  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:48 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Okay, I'm confused--do I root for Breitbart now?
Hmm. Figurative thermonuclear war gets a little dicier when one side can wage literal thermonuclear war, doesn't it?
  #104  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:48 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Je suis Ikea.
Posts: 25,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
Does anybody know how this is playing with the brownshirts? Do they see this as a betrayal, or are they happy he's gone after calling them clowns?


According to the politico article, Breitbart news just posted #WAR! without explanation.
  #105  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:57 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,511
Mm, fun.
  #106  
Old 08-18-2017, 03:38 PM
DinoR DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
How many different skin tones does it come in?
They are starting out with jaundice yellow for their test marketing.
  #107  
Old 08-18-2017, 04:07 PM
Reddy Mercury Reddy Mercury is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Its an ancient tactic, may even be the oldest trick in the book. The king hires a grand vizier, the Finger of the King, and allows him to be the front man for policy that may prove to be unpopular. Then, if things get out of hand, the GV or PM gets it in the neck. "The Czar is a good man, but he is surrounded by Evil Advisers..." You know the drill.

There are cuneiform tablets from ancient Mesopotamia, recording the actions of the King of Akkad, and how his Grand Vizier was summarily dismissed. That's a true fact, you could look it up!
I've always thought that line of thinking is BS.
True, the "Vizier" of any leader may help to bring out his worst qualities. From reading history, for example, I do believe Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell were toxic influences on Richard Nixon. But, they simply simply to bring out qualities that already existed in him. Trump is gonna Trump with or without Bannon. He takes more of his intel and opinions from Fox News than anything else.
  #108  
Old 08-18-2017, 04:25 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,182
I think you have the causation backwards. A smart leader always ensures he's set up a fall guy before he makes a controversial move. If it goes bad, it was all the fall guy's idea. if it goes good, it was all the Boss'es idea. This has nothing to do with the fall guy actually influencing the leader; it's all about the spin.

Part of the set-up for having fall guys is first convincing the public: "The Boss is Good; the fall guys not so much."

As every gambler knows, the best games are the ones where you come out ahead no matter what. Done right, this Boss & Fall Guy tactic amounts to "heads I win; tails you lose" for the Boss every time. With each flip of the coin increasing the public's love of the Boss no matter heads or tails. He's either a genius, or he's cleaning the stables; either way America is Greater than it was yesterday.


Here's an example much closer to home. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...or-a-light-one is a randomly selected Straight Dope column by the SDSAB = Cecil's viziers. The article itself doesn't matter; read the all-caps disclaimer at the bottom. Same logic. If it's a winner it was inspired by Cecil. If it's a loser it wasn't his fault.

As elucidator said, it's one of the oldest tricks in human relations. The fact it continues to work says to me that it exploits a very fundamental defect in human reasoning.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 08-18-2017 at 04:30 PM.
  #109  
Old 08-18-2017, 04:40 PM
John DiFool John DiFool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 17,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Okay, I'm confused--do I root for Breitbart now?
So am I. Is the puppet now going to just sit there motionless?

Last edited by John DiFool; 08-18-2017 at 04:40 PM.
  #110  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:02 PM
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 5,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Okay, I'm confused--do I root for Breitbart now?
No, don't get out of hand here. Just observe both sides, the entirety, the way I hear that some people watch Nascar races- for the crashes.
  #111  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:17 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Okay, I'm confused--do I root for Breitbart now?
Bannon's ouster is presumably not really a mutual decision, even though Bannon most certainly saw it coming like a Kansas tornado. That puts Trump in an extremely difficult position. I find it difficult to believe that he can reconcile with his critics on the Left, who have branded him as a racist, and I find it difficult to believe that he won't eventually in some way fail to appease his demons sitting to the Right. He doesn't really have anyone close to him with the sort of political aplomb and skill to guide him out of this -- he does have John Kelly to at least manage the administrative part of this but he doesn't have anyone in the way of a skilled messenger and strategist who can help Trump build the right kinds of coalitions. And even if he had that person close to him, he doesn't listen. This could really be the beginning of the end.
  #112  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:47 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Bannon's ouster is presumably not really a mutual decision, even though Bannon most certainly saw it coming like a Kansas tornado.
What I heard on the hourly network news today is that Bannon had been asked to resign several weeks ago and refused, so he was eventually fired outright. I don't recall that a source was given for this information, but this comical administration has more leaks than a spaghetti colander.
  #113  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:00 PM
Grrr! Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzigone View Post
So, we're hearing different stories - one saying Trump decided to fire him, and another saying he turned in a resignation on August 7th. Opinions?

Pretty sure it's a classic case of:

Bannon: "You van't fire me! I quit!"

Trump: "You can't quit! You're fired!"
  #114  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:12 PM
Grrr! Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
According to the politico article, Breitbart news just posted #WAR! without explanation.


Bannon says he's going to "war" for the White House according to Hufpo.
  #115  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:57 PM
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,271
"For" or "with"?
  #116  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:36 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 13,584
Well know we'll never get to see Rosie O'Donnell play him on SNL.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #117  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:49 PM
Merneith Merneith is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
"For" or "with"?
For, apparently.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ite-house-exit

I think the idea is that Breitbart will be the pro-Nazi mouthpiece that Donald feels has been unfairly missing from the discussion of his many achievements.
  #118  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:55 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,182
I'm not one for complicated plots, but turning Bannon or Breitbart loose to be an attack dog saying all the things DJT thinks but is slowly realizing the President can't say and still survive might be an excellent maneuver.

To the degree the alt-right is politically hyperactive, the Trumpist/Authoritarian forces can keep the traditional Rs on the back foot. And keep the D's slobbering incoherently and irrelevantly in the corner. Remember I'm still a progressive D while I say that.

So anything DJT can do to keep the pot simmering under his alt-right supporters is to his advantage. We all really need to begin to think of US politics in terms of three parties: D, R, & T/A. The old duopoly is dead (or at least unconscious) for the Presidency UFN and for many other federal and state offices in favorable states. The land rush to become the Authoritarian candidate for congressman in 2018 is starting already.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 08-18-2017 at 07:58 PM.
  #119  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:55 PM
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,271
Nice.

Will it make any appreciable difference? Breitbart has been pretty close to pro-Nazi already, and they haven't refrained from attacking Trump's 'enemies' (The Media, Democrats, intelligent people, etc.).

Can't see how this will change things, but maybe I'm missing something.
  #120  
Old 08-18-2017, 11:09 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Nice.

Will it make any appreciable difference? Breitbart has been pretty close to pro-Nazi already, and they haven't refrained from attacking Trump's 'enemies' (The Media, Democrats, intelligent people, etc.).

Can't see how this will change things, but maybe I'm missing something.
Complete agreement. It's not like he'll be doing anything but preaching to the choir. Maybe the serious media will report some of it, but so what? The Goon Squad have proven themselves racists already. Do they think they'll manage to slide legislation through without anybody noticing, or that it'll somehow make them any more palatable to swing voters?

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 08-18-2017 at 11:11 PM.
  #121  
Old 08-19-2017, 07:49 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,182
Within the part of the country where they're at least a non-trivial minority they'll certainly be able to frame at least part of the agenda for state level legislation and for local-level enforcement. That is very powerful. All the more so if they can keep it up for 2, 4, or 10 years.

As well, IMO the US contains a lot of people who are closet fellow travelers. In the privacy of their own mind they're thinking along the lines of "Those ultra-racists are crudely overdoing it, but thank goodness somebody is finally standing up for us fundies / whiteys."

To the degree the fellow travelers can be coaxed into making even vaguely approving noises in public, suddenly the tide of white supremacy could blossom from WAG 2% rabid adherents to -- big WAG -- 30% rabid + semi-adherents.

There are lots of ways the "unthinkable" is actually the "unsayable-in-public". Once those things do become sayable in public the zeitgeist can shift a very long way in a very short time.


IMO the big news with this will be the vastly lopsided geographical distribution. This will throw into very stark focus the reality that we have 2 USAs with very different ideas of how to run the country: the non-deep South urban/suburban, and the rural and/or Deep South.

The fact the former demographic is a hefty majority of the people but the latter is a hefty majority of the land area and statehouses and federal legislators will lead to lots of controversy about voting arrangements, just as it did in 2016.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 08-19-2017 at 07:49 AM.
  #122  
Old 08-20-2017, 11:04 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,184
A thought that occurred to me: what if Bannon wants to do more than just bark at the republican establishment from the sidelines and establish his own tea party type political movement?
  #123  
Old 08-20-2017, 03:55 PM
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
A thought that occurred to me: what if Bannon wants to do more than just bark at the republican establishment from the sidelines and establish his own tea party type political movement?
I wouldn't bet anything of value on that; Bannon might like the idea of being head of his own party, but he just doesn't have the energy. (Let alone the charisma.) Years of heavy drinking will do that to a guy.

As for being kingmaker behind some figurehead: who? Richard Spencer? Sure, they'd get their hardcore 20% or so--the willing-to-accept-the-name white supremacists--but that's not enough to win any useful offices.

And the additional 10-15% of voters who are 'okay' with white supremacy but shrink at owning it, wouldn't go for an outright W.S. unless they thought he had a chance of winning. And Richard Spencer and his ilk have no chance of winning.

Trump was an anomaly. His inherited wealth gave shy-white-supremacists a ready and plausible excuse for voting for him ("he's a great businessman!") And his years on TV gave him a 'harmless' aura that no reclusive wealthy right-wing extremist can boast.

So I'm not seeing how Bannon could form a successful party; there's no potential candidate to serve as standard-bearer who combines Trump's racism with his 'plausible reason for voting for him' status.
  #124  
Old 08-21-2017, 05:37 AM
wolfman wolfman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,298
I'm still curious how Bannon is going to war for Trump's White house, when his acknowledged enemies are Trump's administration. Almost all the only people left are big military projectionists, and elite Jewish businessmen. I know the cognitive dissonance is strong with the Trump supporters, and there is still Sessions I guess.

I suppose Bannon could go 100% on anti-immigration, hitting the overlap with the white supremacists, But I can't figure out how exactly you make the president in general look like the poor put-upon victim of his own staff, and have it come out positive.

Last edited by wolfman; 08-21-2017 at 05:38 AM.
  #125  
Old 08-21-2017, 05:57 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,744
Not white supremacists, just white nationalists! Just like economic nationalism doesn't really mean breaking trade treaties, just doing them so we get the jobs. Pretty simple, really.
  #126  
Old 08-21-2017, 07:09 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
I'm still curious how Bannon is going to war for Trump's White house, when his acknowledged enemies are Trump's administration. Almost all the only people left are big military projectionists, and elite Jewish businessmen. I know the cognitive dissonance is strong with the Trump supporters, and there is still Sessions I guess.

I suppose Bannon could go 100% on anti-immigration, hitting the overlap with the white supremacists, But I can't figure out how exactly you make the president in general look like the poor put-upon victim of his own staff, and have it come out positive.
I think what Bannon means is he's going to use Breitbart and right wing media to put pressure on the president, and the president would do best to heel. Whether the president himself survives or not is not Bannon's concern; the right wing white nationalist agenda is what matters most, and he's going to ramp up pressure on those whom he believes are standing in the way. Basically, the people who pushed Bannon out of the White House are now going to face his wrath. And what is the president going to do about it - fire him?
  #127  
Old 08-21-2017, 05:03 PM
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think what Bannon means is he's going to use Breitbart and right wing media to put pressure on the president, and the president would do best to heel. Whether the president himself survives or not is not Bannon's concern; the right wing white nationalist agenda is what matters most, and he's going to ramp up pressure on those whom he believes are standing in the way. Basically, the people who pushed Bannon out of the White House are now going to face his wrath. And what is the president going to do about it - fire him?
Trump could do Bannon a fair amount of harm with a (hypothetical) relentless Twitter campaign about The Failing Breitbart and how Breitbart has become a tool of the Alt-Left and how Bannon was seen taking money from globalists who are working to bury America. And also Bannon is secretly working for Hillary Clinton--and was, all along.

Wouldn't matter if it's all invented. If Trump works relentlessly enough at it, it could hurt pageviews at Breitbart, and that would hit Bannon hard.
  #128  
Old 08-21-2017, 08:38 PM
aurora maire aurora maire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Trump could do Bannon a fair amount of harm with a (hypothetical) relentless Twitter campaign about The Failing Breitbart and how Breitbart has become a tool of the Alt-Left and how Bannon was seen taking money from globalists who are working to bury America. And also Bannon is secretly working for Hillary Clinton--and was, all along.

Wouldn't matter if it's all invented. If Trump works relentlessly enough at it, it could hurt pageviews at Breitbart, and that would hit Bannon hard.
But Trump has given Bannon his blessing:

"Steve Bannon will be a tough and smart new voice at @BreitbartNews...maybe even better than ever before. Fake News needs the competition!"

So if he's saying Bannon will be the purveyor of "real news", what's he going to say when Bannon goes after Jared and Ivanka?
  #129  
Old 08-21-2017, 09:18 PM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurora maire View Post

So if he's saying Bannon will be the purveyor of "real news", what's he going to say when Bannon goes after Jared and Ivanka?
He'll just say that Brietbart has always been fake news, and he does not even know this Bannon guy. Never met him. Believe me.

Trump has no problem contradicting himself, even 10 minutes later.
  #130  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:54 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,744
I think I see it, as through a glass, dorkly. It has been noted often that Trump will express a sternly extreme position on something, and then sometimes directly contradict that position. Frequently. Almost always.

Maybe that's the telling pattern. Compare any given Trump declaration on, say, immigration. And compare it with other such policy statements to find the direct contradiction. Let's say those positions mutually nullify, thus, there is no position. Hence, there is no fake position because there is no true one. Schrodinger's Catch-22, if you will. I'm going to anyway, so you might just as well.

After this procedure of elimination, there may be a residue of things said that he did not contradict! And they must be the core of adamant opinion, what Il Douche actually thinks! Perhaps we need a volunteer to pursue the question, someone who thrives on the tedious, tiresome and pedantic. (I would offer myself but am hampered by laziness.)
  #131  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:56 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Trump could do Bannon a fair amount of harm with a (hypothetical) relentless Twitter campaign about The Failing Breitbart and how Breitbart has become a tool of the Alt-Left and how Bannon was seen taking money from globalists who are working to bury America. And also Bannon is secretly working for Hillary Clinton--and was, all along.

Wouldn't matter if it's all invented. If Trump works relentlessly enough at it, it could hurt pageviews at Breitbart, and that would hit Bannon hard.
True, he could do Bannon harm. But Trump will have to actually, for once, appear to be more of a conventional president and start making the kinds of decisions that conventional presidents do. He's been very, very fortunate that he came in riding a very strong economy - one of the strongest in terms of sustained GDP and jobs growth over the past 100 years. He's been fortunate in that no major new crises have broken out on his watch. In both cases, however, it's a matter of not yet. When bad things happen - and they will - and when the average person starts looking for blame, he'll be at the top of everyone - and I do mean everyone's - list. And we're not even talking about his growing legal jeopardy. At that point, he'll need a base to run to. If he moderates, if he pivots away from Bannon, he'll have a hard time regaining the trust of a voting base that believes in Alex Jones more than it does anyone who resides within the Beltway. Bannon is in a much better position to hurt Trump than the other way around.
  #132  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:50 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I think I see it, as through a glass, dorkly. It has been noted often that Trump will express a sternly extreme position on something, and then sometimes directly contradict that position. Frequently. Almost always.

Maybe that's the telling pattern. Compare any given Trump declaration on, say, immigration. And compare it with other such policy statements to find the direct contradiction. Let's say those positions mutually nullify, thus, there is no position. Hence, there is no fake position because there is no true one. Schrodinger's Catch-22, if you will. I'm going to anyway, so you might just as well.
...
That's a thing of beauty and discernment. Bravo

Shrodinger's Catch-22 is a marvelous name for it.

You totally win the thread right there.
  #133  
Old 08-22-2017, 07:48 PM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,981
Breitbart's motivations just got laid bare. The editor in chief responded to someone pretending to be Bannon where they discuss colluding to destroy Ivanka and Kushner suggesting he can get them out of the White House by the end of the year. CNN reported that the Breitbart guy "shared a personal smear about their private lives, perhaps an indication of how low the website is willing to go to achieve its agenda." but CNN did not divulge it.

(On edit, the Vox link shows the actual emails insinuating that Kushner is an "actual cuckold".)

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 08-22-2017 at 07:52 PM.
  #134  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:48 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Breitbart's motivations just got laid bare. The editor in chief responded to someone pretending to be Bannon where they discuss colluding to destroy Ivanka and Kushner suggesting he can get them out of the White House by the end of the year. CNN reported that the Breitbart guy "shared a personal smear about their private lives, perhaps an indication of how low the website is willing to go to achieve its agenda." but CNN did not divulge it.

(On edit, the Vox link shows the actual emails insinuating that Kushner is an "actual cuckold".)
Breitbart's motives, like those of the far right, are to tap into white rage. They want a revolution. The problem as Bannon found out is that most revolutions fail - and they fail because most rebels are good at tearing people down, tearing reputations, tearing ideas down, and perhaps, if they're successful, tearing entire systems down. But once you tear it down, you actually have to fucking govern. You have to know how things work. All revolutions eventually run int a "Now what?" moment. The scary thing isn't that Bannon had all these nutty ideas; it's that he actually had his hands on the steering wheel and throttles of power, as did others like Mike Flynn. That such bozos could get a taste of this sort of power without having any idea of how to use other than to destroy...is kinda scary when you think about it.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017