What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Jacob]

Bannon sacked, according to WaPo.

Link?

[Habbaku]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html?mcubz=0

Developing story.

[Valmy]

There already is a battle at a river of blood. Chickamauga.

[Valmy]

Yep. Bannon is out. Is there anybody left in that White House?

[Jacob]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html?mcubz=0

Developing story.

Thanks

[The Minsky Moment]

Yep. Bannon is out.

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

Is there anybody left in that White House?

The Wizard.

Pardon.  The Grand Wizard.

[The Brain]

I'm sure the void will be filled by someone less insane.

[Habbaku]

Bannon's not actually out yet, though. As much as I will rejoice when it happens, I'd rather not get my hopes up.

[viper37]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html?mcubz=0

Developing story.

Befriending someone close to Justin Trudeau was the last straw.     some things are totally unforgivable for this administration.

[celedhring]

Bannon sacked, according to WaPo.

Link?

Sorry, I was on my phone and I just had the alert popping up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-decides-to-get-rid-of-white-house-chief-strategist-stephen-bannon/2017/08/18/98cd5c40-8430-11e7-902a-2a9f2d808496_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_bannon-109pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.421cd8874ab2

[viper37]

So, to people who see it all as the same problem, what is your answer? The only clear sense I have is: "Do nothing and hope the police steps in". Is there a moment where you feel direct action would be warranted, or is it never warranted? Would you all feel comfortable going to a counter-demonstration?

Put the spotlight on them:
https://www.facebook.com/jorgeramosnews/videos/1974248622860583/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-leader-interview-latina-journalist-death-threat-black-woman-video-a7899306.html
http://www.distractify.com/trending/2017/08/15/ZerMmv/father-open-letter-son-charlottesville-rally?utm_content=inf_10_53_2&tse_id=INF_96172ca0834611e7a25233ff5ad8dbb3

This makes people react a lot more than violent counter protest.  If it hadn't been for the terrorist action, we wouldn't be talking about the protest.  If one of these KKK types dies or is seriously injured during a protest, what will happen then?

If one look at the past, when antifa and Skinheads types were clashing in the street of Montreal, counter protests achieved nothing.  Even when a Rock Machine antifa (Gros Michel) was killed, it took police action to dismantle the drug network on both sides that finance these actions.


If we're talking ISIS militant coming back to Canada, US and Europe, do you advocate violence against them to prevent possible terrorism action?  Or is there any other measure you can think of to deradicalize someone like that?

[FunkMonk]

With Steve out, the only person left in the West Wing with strong ties to the GOP is Mike Pence.

Donald vs. Breitbart vs. Congressional Rs is going to be insane

Edit: Forgot Kellyanne but she's a minor non-entity anyway

[FunkMonk]

Looking good for Pence 2020 and 2024 :derspiess:

[frunk]

So, so far, I think people on the forum who have come out with support of anti-fascism direct action have all circumscribed the point at which it would become unacceptable, while people who don't, have all insisted it all leads to vigilantism, and is thus akin to supporting mob rule, and are the acts of equally thuggish people.

I haven't said any such thing, but I'll respond.

So, to people who see it all as the same problem, what is your answer? The only clear sense I have is: "Do nothing and hope the police steps in". Is there a moment where you feel direct action would be warranted, or is it never warranted? Would you all feel comfortable going to a counter-demonstration?

We're talking about a continuum of situations.  Ideally there are no Nazis.  If there are Nazis hopefully they can be contained by popular protest, police and governmental action.  If they can't be contained by the above then yes more direct confrontation is necessary.  That shouldn't be the first response, though, as it indicates a breakdown of other checks in the system.  Which, when we get down to it, is what the Nazis want.  They want violence and intimidation to be a regular part of society.  It doesn't mean that the anti-fascists are the same as the fascists, it means that we are competing on the playing field the fascists want to be on.

[Oexmelin]

Put the spotlight on them: This makes people react a lot more than violent counter protest.

Again, the counter protest was not intended to be violent. This, for some reason, seems really hard to understand.

I am skeptical that "the spotlight" does all the good it claims to do.

If it hadn't been for the terrorist action, we wouldn't be talking about the protest. 

"We" were talking about the protest well before the terrorist action. I have friends who were there, I saw the counter protest being organized ever since the nazis and the klansmen had announced publicly their intentions. People were afraid because the Nazis and Klansman promote violence, have always done so, continue to do so. So, the real question that was in everybody's mind was: are we going to be intimidated by that?

If one of these KKK types dies or is seriously injured during a protest, what will happen then?

Law and Order types will side with Nazis? Racists will keep on being racist?

Let me put it this way: in protests on matters of high tension, in gatherings of hundreds or thousands of people, I expect there will be some people, either out of circumstances, or out of design, who will engage in violent acts. In larger gatherings, there will be subgroups, offshoots, etc., whose message may be more radical, and others who will be less radical. I tend not to use this to tar entire groups with a message of violence and destruction, especially when groups profess a message that is, in its essence, non-violent - but your mileage evidently varies, because you tend to ascribe the most radical ideas to all whom you identify with your political enemies in order to discredit them all. Then again, I also do not think that opposing free trade makes you the moral equivalent of a Nazi.

The difference with Nazis and klansmen is that they *actually* profess violence; they show up with guns, which is different from showing with masks to preserve against tear gas; that guy got into a car, and drove into a crowd, which is different than punching someone in the face in the heat of the moment. A run-of-the-mill Confedetard protest at Lee's statue would have me assume that they are racist fucks, who need to be politically opposed. An organization marching under a Nazi flag, benefiting from the complacency of the Cheeto Benito(c)CdM) is a different matter altogether.

Even when a Rock Machine antifa (Gros Michel) was killed, it took police action to dismantle the drug network on both sides that finance these actions.

As I am sure you know, the context there was drug trade in bars (something which hasn't gone away, and isn't limited to antifa vs skinheads), and conflict within countercultures. I am not sure it is quite applicable.

If we're talking ISIS militant coming back to Canada, US and Europe, do you advocate violence against them to prevent possible terrorism action?  Or is there any other measure you can think of to deradicalize someone like that?

If Isis militants start demonstrating with their black flag, marching down the streets with guns, and, say, showing up to intimidate women at abortion clinics, I will have the exact same stance. Deradicalization is, of course, the objective, but you do not do that on the streets.