Clinton Speech Links Trump to Racist Alt-Right, Alex Jones

[J Cord]

'alt-right' is just a politically correct term for 'bigot'. Why can't people say it like it is these days?

It's a rebranding of the White Supremacy movement.

One of Breitbart's editors is Milo Yiannopoulos, the guy who was permanently banned from twitter for leading the misogynistic and racist attack on Ghostbuster's Leslie Jones.

 

[J Cord]

Nutshell.

Yeppers.

 

[J Cord]

I'd say "bigot" is an understatement. Most people are bigoted. The people I've seen who call themselves "alt-right" are far more irrational and mean-spirited.

You are so right.

One of Breitbart's editors is Milo Yiannopoulos, the guy who was permanently banned from twitter for leading the misogynistic and racist attack on Ghostbusteer's Leslie Jones. Milo is considered one of the leading spokesmen for the alt-right.

 

[J Cord]

That's more or less what Trump's opponents said during the primary. The answer now, as it was then is "should he be?" Would you vote for him if he was? Do you miss George W. Bush that much? Conservatism has been defeated now. It's done. Something else is taking its place. Hope you're satisfied...

Why would anyone with 1/2 a brain be satisfied with this? After the 2008 and 2012 defeats, the Republican party acknowledged that it had to reach out to minorities. Michael Steele, chair of the RNC, apologized for the decades long use of the Southern Strategy.

And instead of doing ridding itself of the racism inherent in the Southern Strategy, they go further down the rabbit hole, heck, they go to the bottom of the rabbit hole, and this is somehow liberal's fault? Come on, I thought the Republican party was the party of personal responsibility?

 

[bhsmte]

Trump doesn't really have much of an actual connection to the alt-right. It'd be more accurate to say that the alt-right has a sort of collective man-crush on him.

Serial narcissists, are usually only firmly connected to their own ego.

 

[PapaZoom]

IT <-------Big It

it <-------small it

 

[MrSpikey]

'alt-right' is just a politically correct term for 'bigot'. Why can't people say it like it is these days?

I always assumed it was so they could be distinguished from the non-alt-right bigots?

 

[MrSpikey]

He is like the Dad I never had, but wanted desperately. I love Donald J. Trump, he reminds me of my Moms Dad.

I guess "daddy issues" would explain your uncompromising support and optimism for his campaign.

I'd really love to hear you try and persuade someone not thinking of voting Trump into doing so with that argument, though...

 

[jgarden]

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Why would anyone with 1/2 a brain be satisfied with this?

Because when Bush was in the White House, he could do no right, and now the GOP has repudiated the legacy of Bush. Because the Koch brothers' money dominating politics was a pernicious thing and now the GOP is no longer beholden to them. Because the influence of the Religious Right was once lamented, and now they have taken a decidedly junior position in the coalition, and most of them seem to have accepted it. The Republican presidential nominee has promised not to touch Social Security or Medicare, which ten years ago many in the party were talking about privatizing. He freely admits that our intervention in Iraq was a disaster. This is, in many ways the "moderate" Republican the Dems have always said they wanted, but now somehow he's not good enough either? Be careful what you wish for, I guess.

After the 2008 and 2012 defeats, the Republican party acknowledged that it had to reach out to minorities.

...because it worked so well in 2008 and 2012?

Michael Steele, chair of the RNC, apologized for the decades long use of the Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy led to Republican domination of presidential politics for a quarter of a century; you can't argue with success. Apologizing for that suggests not really wanting to win.

And instead of doing ridding itself of the racism inherent in the Southern Strategy, they go further down the rabbit hole, heck, they go to the bottom of the rabbit hole, and this is somehow liberal's fault? Come on, I thought the Republican party was the party of personal responsibility?

They're following a strategy which is, admittedly, the exact opposite of that recommended by the 2012 autopsy report - focus on consolidating the white vote, which is still expected to be about 70% of the electorate. It's an unorthodox strategy, to be sure, but it worked beautifully in the primaries, which suggests that, at any rate, it's good for firing up the base, which is also important in the general election. It's something new, which is important if one remembers that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[J Cord]

Because when Bush was in the White House, he could do no right, and now the GOP has repudiated the legacy of Bush.

Yes, GWB sure managed to make a mess of everything. A war that drained the national coffers to the tune of trillions, and leaving the country on the brink of economic collapse.

Because the Koch brothers' money dominating politics was a pernicious thing and now the GOP is no longer beholden to them. Because the influence of the Religious Right was once lamented, and now they have taken a decidedly junior position in the coalition, and most of them seem to have accepted it. The Republican presidential nominee has promised not to touch Social Security or Medicare, which ten years ago many in the party were talking about privatizing. He freely admits that our intervention in Iraq was a disaster. This is, in many ways the "moderate" Republican the Dems have always said they wanted, but now somehow he's not good enough either? Be careful what you wish for, I guess.

The thing is, you and I have no idea what Trump means to do with SS or Medicare or anything else. He says whatever the crowd he's in front of wants to hear. Does Trump even know what he wants to do, besides get cheers?

The only value we know Trump has is he is willing to use racism to enlarge, maintain, and excite his base.

The Southern Strategy led to Republican domination of presidential politics for a quarter of a century; you can't argue with success. Apologizing for that suggests not really wanting to win.

Yes you can argue with success. It sounds like Trump was "successful" with Trump University, but I argue with how he achieved this.

No, it suggests that some people in the Republican party understand that it was a disgusting tactic to use, and that the Republican party needs to reform.

They're following a strategy which is, admittedly, the exact opposite of that recommended by the 2012 autopsy report - focus on consolidating the white vote, which is still expected to be about 70% of the electorate. It's an unorthodox strategy, to be sure, but it worked beautifully in the primaries, which suggests that, at any rate, it's good for firing up the base, which is also important in the general election. It's something new, which is important if one remembers that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Unorthodox is right. Every day Trump does something which almost convinces me he is trying to destroy the Republican party. Now he's making the alt-right movement part of mainstream Republican politics, like that's going to work out well. SMH.

 

[trunks2k]

Yes, GWB sure managed to make a mess of everything. A war that drained the national coffers to the tune of trillions, and leaving the country on the brink of economic collapse.

While I am certainly no fan of W Bush, I have a hard time laying the blame for the financial collapse at his feet. The roots of the collapse go further back than him. Sure, he continued and probably even doubled down on policies that made it happen, but the problem was much deeper and longer lasting. Can't blame just him.

In his defense, I really do think that once the feces hit the fan, he handled the situation pretty decently and did a good job of keeping EVERYTHING from going belly up.

 

[bhsmte]

While I am certainly no fan of W Bush, I have a hard time laying the blame for the financial collapse at his feet. The roots of the collapse go further back than him. Sure, he continued and probably even doubled down on policies that made it happen, but the problem was much deeper and longer lasting. Can't blame just him.

In his defense, I really do think that once the feces hit the fan, he handled the situation pretty decently and did a good job of keeping EVERYTHING from going belly up.

As a general rule, presidents get too much credit for economies that are strong and too much blame for economies that tank. Lots of other forces are in play.

 

[J Cord]

While I am certainly no fan of W Bush, I have a hard time laying the blame for the financial collapse at his feet. The roots of the collapse go further back than him. Sure, he continued and probably even doubled down on policies that made it happen, but the problem was much deeper and longer lasting. Can't blame just him.

In his defense, I really do think that once the feces hit the fan, he handled the situation pretty decently and did a good job of keeping EVERYTHING from going belly up.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with at least part of it, but he did leave the country in a mess. The arrow was definitely pointing down.

 

[J Cord]

As a general rule, presidents get too much credit for economies that are strong and too much blame for economies that tank. Lots of other forces are in play.

I agree bhsmte, like the QB of a football team, but imo it is undeniable that GWB left the country in a mess.

EDIT: That's one of the things I really admire about the gentlemen who founded your country, they made it really difficult for one person or one group of people to mess things up too much.

 

[trunks2k]

EDIT: That's one of the things I really admire about the gentlemen who founded your country, they made it really difficult for one person or one group of people to mess things up too much.

But at the same time, it's also hard to fix things

 

[The Cadet]

This is, in many ways the "moderate" Republican the Dems have always said they wanted, but now somehow he's not good enough either?

Yeah, you know... if Trump had actual reasonable policy proposals, if he showed the kind of mindset and candor expected of a presidential candidate, if he wasn't effectively a post-truth candidate and as such pretty much the most dishonest candidate in recent history, if he didn't back his campaign so constantly with bigotry, if he wasn't so petty and vindictive, if any number of things that disqualify him as a political candidate weren't true, he might be a decent moderate republican and he might even get votes.

Unfortunately, those things are true. Trump has no reasonable policy proposals; the few he has are not fleshed out and terrible ideas. He constantly refuses to show himself as at all capable of the kind of tempering and emotional stability required of a national leader. He lies constantly, even about trivial or unimportant things, even when he can be sure that he'll be called on it by everyone with a whit of integrity left in them. He's a bigot and he's linked his campaign to bigots. He's incredibly petty and vindictive, going after literally anyone he feels slights him, regardless of how little power they may have, how counterproductive it is for his campaign, or whether they belong to the "untouchables" like gold star parents. Pointing to certain "moderating" factors does nothing to change the fact that these things absolutely should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. The fact that he's still likely to get some 40% of the vote speaks volumes to how broken the media and the electorate on the right wing is in this country.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well, he's appointed the CEO of Breitbart News his campaign manager, he's had some very kind things to say about Alex Jones*, he's retweeted alt-right and white nationalists something like 70-odd times now (including one guy by the name of WhiteGenocideTM, which is about as on-the-nose as you can get with these things without including the N word in your username), and there's probably some reason the alt-right has a collective man-crush on him, no?


*Note: this is enough of a red flag on its own to warrant not taking a person seriously and probably removing them from your social circle.

I recently had a discussion with someone who had a habit of citing Alex Jones as a source. After several rounds of debunking this person's silly claims, I asked her why she would even look to somebody like him who promotes crazy ideas like chemtrails.

Her response was something to the effect of, "That just shows how ignorant you are. The government has even admitted that chemtrails are real."

It's not often I get blindsided by crazy stupid...

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Yes, GWB sure managed to make a mess of everything. A war that drained the national coffers to the tune of trillions, and leaving the country on the brink of economic collapse.

...and Trump rightly said "the last thing this country needs is another Bush". It was a Bush who was topping the polls before Trump got in...

The thing is, you and I have no idea what Trump means to do with SS or Medicare or anything else. He says whatever the crowd he's in front of wants to hear.

That could be said about any candidate, really. We can make an educated guess based on the positions the candidate runs on. It's true that politicians don't always implement the policies they run on when they get elected, but you cross that bridge when you come to it. I don't have to trust Trump. By voting for him, I advance the positions he supports on the campaign trail. If he doesn't stick with them that's on him, not me.

No, it suggests that some people in the Republican party understand that it was a disgusting tactic to use, and that the Republican party needs to reform.

Of course the Left saw it as "disgusting"; time and time it led to their defeat at the polls. However, this sounds much like the whining of a some loser. For Republicans to call it disgusting... why? Because your opponents say it is. Generally, placating your opponents doesn't work in politics.

Now he's making the alt-right movement part of mainstream Republican politics, like that's going to work out well.

Hillary Clinton's speech will probably to more for the alt-right, that Trump appointing Bannon as his campaign manager. The amount of traffic to alt-right websites after the speech would suggest that.

 

[tall73]

I recently had a discussion with someone who had a habit of citing Alex Jones as a source. After several rounds of debunking this person's silly claims, I asked her why she would even look to somebody like him who promotes crazy ideas like chemtrails.

Her response was something to the effect of, "That just shows how ignorant you are. The government has even admitted that chemtrails are real."

It's not often I get blindsided by crazy stupid...

Well, they admit contrails are real, which is of course different. They admit they don't yet know the impact on the environment:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf

Persistent contrails are of interest to scientists because
they increase the cloudiness of the atmosphere. The
increase happens in two ways. First, persistent contrails
are line-shaped clouds that would not have formed in the
atmosphere without the passage of an aircraft. Secondly, persist-
ent contrails often evolve and spread into extensive cirrus cloud
cover that is indistinguishable from naturally occurring cloudi-
ness (See Figure 3). At present, it is unknown how much of this
more extensive cloudiness would have occurred without the
passage of an aircraft. Not enough is known about how natural
clouds form in the atmosphere to answer this question.
Changes in cloudiness are important because clouds help con-
trol the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. Changes in
cloudiness resulting from human activities are important
because they might contribute to long-term changes in the
Earth’s climate.


Of course, where Alex Jones differs is that he thinks chemicals were added to the jet fuel to intentionally create this effect, though he admits he is not sure for what purpose.

That would have to be demonstrated, and I am unaware of studies that show this. He references a patent for the technology in one of his videos, and the practice of weather modification in the past by the government.

So essentially he seems to be basing it on inference from past activities and observation.

I wouldn't use Infowars as a source for information. They readily admit they have an agenda. So unless it was a video and you could see for yourself the information, I don't think they make a viable source for substantiating something. However, they at times do reference viable sources.

At the same time I find some of their discussions interesting. I just go check out the sources behind the stories and see which are believable. Likewise I enjoy their discussion at times of historical conspiracies that are now known to be true. And with those in mind I am at least open to looking at theories if they have evidence. I don't find enough evidence on Chemtrails to be convincing yet. But secret programs have existed before that the evidence was not there for until they were outed.

On the other hand, Clinton indicating Putin was behind the alt-right movement was hardly demonstrated, or believable either.