|
Post by cjm on Dec 13, 2017 18:10:52 GMT
Bannon's WarI posted this on a Breitbart item: I only got one fairly nondescript reply. Sadly, I suspect most of the Breitbart posters aren't too bright. I also suspect a communication gap - I think my comments don't translate too well into Americanese, and are often misunderstood. But anyway, I think it is very feasible that Bannon's efforts could result in the Senate resorting back to the Democrats, (I'm very sure that Bannon himself is totally aware of the fact) and I'm trying to work out how that is going to help Bannon. Maybe in 2 ways: 1. Perhaps Trump is going to push a lot of his stuff very quickly, very early next year. Due to Bannon's efforts, the GOP senators are going to think very carefully and very deeply about how they are going to respond to that. They can be assured that if they cross Trump, it will echo all over the US. 2. I think that maybe Bannon is willing to hand over the Senate to the Democrats. America is in a mess, and in truth, during a mess it is much better to NOT be in charge. Whatever the Democrats do is guaranteed to piss the voters off even more, which is going add huge impetus to the Bannon movement. I also suspect that Bannon will not be averse to Trump being impeached, and not making it to the next presidential election. I think he has Trump's successor already lined up - Ted Cruz. (Although as a South African I can't imagine why - when I look at the man, I can't escape the feeling that actually he should be in jail). Alabama Election Results: Doug Jones Defeats Roy Moore in U.S. Senate RaceThis is hardly unexpected. I reckon it's not a surprise for Bannon either. So again, what does he get out of it? Maybe he just went for the big win, having decided that losing isn't bad either - he effectively obliterated what must've been a forgone conclusion for the Republicans. I must say, I thought Moore was in with a chance. Bannon poured a lot of energy into the campaign as well. I cannot think that he would have done so if he did not believe in Moore's chances. The allegations must have hurt Moore more than it was thought by his campaign managers. Drudge opines that Luther Strange would have won by a large margin. What seems clear is that Jones was not supported by Republicans. They just did not vote at all. It is said that of the Republican voter base, 50 % cast a vote. On the Democrat side, it was over 90 %
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Dec 22, 2017 8:32:57 GMT
IS STEVE BANNON RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?The headline is actually click-bait. I very much doubt that Bannon wants to be president. He wants to be the person who tells the president what to do. I reckon he thinks of the POTUS in much the same way I think of the POTUS - as a face, a talking head. This aligns with what I also think: It may not have been the initial strategy, but Bannon will rather take Moore's loss than to have had the establishment GOP take the election, and he will do it again and again.
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Feb 14, 2018 12:10:53 GMT
Has Anyone Seen the President?Bannon is obviously working harder than ever. And his association with Breitbart obviously continues undiminished. I never believed any of the recent mainstream reporting about him. Like Mercer, I think, he is working deliberately to shrink his public profile. What is he working at, I wonder? Probably at manufacturing the next president.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Feb 15, 2018 7:05:48 GMT
Has Anyone Seen the President?Bannon is obviously working harder than ever. And his association with Breitbart obviously continues undiminished. I never believed any of the recent mainstream reporting about him. Like Mercer, I think, he is working deliberately to shrink his public profile. What is he working at, I wonder? Probably at manufacturing the next president. Bannon almost seems normal according to this article - Trump does not. A few points about Lewis's Trump picture: One does not build a business empire on luck. Trump has lost a lot of money as a result of his Presidency. What people fail to notice is his desire to be a good President. Call it vanity or whatever, but that is what he is pursuing. Questioning his commitment to ethics is far fetched if one compares him with Hillary (for example). I have a lot of reservations about the supposed tryst with Stormy. That he would have wanted to bury any allegations I can understand, but is it the truth? In any event, his lawyer paid her off -'K one can question that, but Trump wandering about in his pajamas talking about his fear of donating to sharks - please! The emphasis on the remarks about a weaker $ is typical Trump bashing. A weaker $ would be in the US's interest. Saying so, does not mean there is an underhanded attempt to do it. In fact, the policy of making the US great would undermine any attempt to weaken it. And so one can continue. A little inuendo here, a little falsehood there - all under a pretense of objectivity. Using your type of thinking about Bannon, I would suggest that his "firing" was a convenient (consensual) means of getting him into positions where he could facilitate Trump's agenda and gather info. It would also make it easier to speak to people like Lewis and attempt to influence them. At the same time it would take the heat off Trump by people gunning for Bannon. It is worth noting that Trump and the GOP has since made a comeback in the polls.
|
|
|
Post by Trog on May 28, 2018 13:55:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jul 25, 2018 19:49:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Sept 7, 2018 14:19:16 GMT
Bannon on Australia. Mostly.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Sept 8, 2018 8:59:21 GMT
Bannon on Australia. Mostly.
Thanks for the video, Trog. I was spellbound!!
Bannon looks much better than after the Trump campaign. He radiates energy and power.
I cannot think of anything I disagree with except perhaps the attack on elites. I think society needs them as well - perhaps in a less dominant position, but going after them too much also has implications for freedom. I fully agree about the dangers China poses: no one has ever had the courage to check them.
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Sept 9, 2018 8:59:37 GMT
I cannot think of anything I disagree with except perhaps the attack on elites. I think society needs them as well - perhaps in a less dominant position, but going after them too much also has implications for freedom.
I sure Bannon is not at all opposed to hierarchical structures - he is, after all, cast as someone on the right of the political spectrum, where hierarchies are considered to be inevitable, desirable and the natural consequence of the mere act of existence. (Which is, as far as I can perceive, one of the few meaningful difference between the right and the left.) If Bannon was anti-hierarchy he would be on the left, rather than on the right. So I don't think that Bannon considers 'the elites' as an entity that fits into a hierarchical structure at all - 'elite' does not refer to them as sitting on top of a hierarchical order. It's just a name to signify that closed ecosystem that developed around the body of professional politicians, large corporate business enterprises and the mainstream media, and the concomitant crony capitalism, which transcends party and even national boundaries and excludes everybody not part of it from politics.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Sept 25, 2018 5:16:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jul 21, 2019 13:52:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jul 10, 2020 5:33:26 GMT
War for EternityI keep wondering why leftist keep referring to Bannon as 'far right'. He's nothing of the sort. In as far as leftists understand what 'right' is even supposed to mean, which is hugely confused. I think the explanation is that leftists think in a templated, patterned fashion, and are incapable of understanding anything beyond that. If something does not follow their preconceived ideas, they're basically lost.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jul 10, 2020 9:44:47 GMT
War for EternityI keep wondering why leftist keep referring to Bannon as 'far right'. He's nothing of the sort. In as far as leftists understand what 'right' is even supposed to mean, which is hugely confused. I think the explanation is that leftists think in a templated, patterned fashion, and are incapable of understanding anything beyond that. If something does not follow their preconceived ideas, they're basically lost. I think it is a smear tactic - they don't believe it themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Nov 8, 2020 8:56:30 GMT
It was such a splendid lost opportunity.
The single most important feature of the Trump election in 2016 was that it exploded what has effectively become a fascist status quo: The existence of a political class every bit as dominant, exclusive and authoritarian as the royalty of Europe 800 years ago, built on the four pillars of politics, commerce, civil service and 'mainstream' media ~ propaganda.
The attitude they are carefully cultivating within the general population, the message constantly sponsored by these people about themselves, is that: Only its members are capable of becoming governors, senators and presidents. Its members are more intelligent than what you are. Its members are more knowledgeable than what you are. You had to be born into it. You had to be accepted into it.
E.g. Trump could not be president, because he did not know how to be presidential.
Now this is not just unique to the US, it is a feature of the entire Western World - and it is one I personally would love to see destroyed. (In the US the problem is perhaps slightly more dire, because the civil service is often lead by elected officials, with the result that their civil service sometimes gets entangled with politics). I must, however, ask myself if, in all of the USA, they could not find a better candidate than Trump. (Who are 'they'? I'm not a conspiracy kind of guy - it is quite clear that there are several and significant programs with exactly this aim, which they state quite clearly and openly).
For in the end, Trump really is the bloke that knows so very little about so many things. If only they could find an actual genius (instead of merely 'a very stable' one) to push for the 2016 elections. Someone like Boris Johnson, for instance. I'm beginning to despair of any such person existing in the USA.
In fact, I'm sort of adjusting my perception of Americans generally. I used to admire their science, technology, and art even, but I now tend more to the view that America's achievements here were invariably due to first generation immigrants from Germany, Eastern Europe and a sprinkling from France, Italy and England - more often than not Jewish, to boot.
Maybe the US DO actually need their immigrants.
Although, I suspect that the Trump presidency did in fact achieve some of its objectives. It has made visible rifts in the fundamental make-up of the USA which can, from now on, never again be hidden, and therefore started a process which is just going to gain momentum from now on. I suspect that the next POTUS will be a Republican, again. Hopefully one as fringe as Trump, but with a far more developed understanding. The one single thing that will accelerate this is if Biden should croak within the next year or so, and the USA finds itself with Kamala Harris as president for the next 3 years. (Or maybe Biden could develop full-blown dementia - that would be an even bigger win). So maybe this is a blessing in disguise.
|
|