... Or as an interested Democrat, on which line of thought do you subscribe more? If Trump is to be, eeerrr, influenced, which party of advisors would you prefer to do it? I listed the two main currents - Bannon and Kushner - but if you want to go for an alternate choice, there's a third option. The poll is made visible so people get a good chance to show and see their colours. Reasons and comments are, of course, welcomed.
I didnt know they even had republicans in canada As an American last week I would have said trump and bannon I like bannon because he is more pure Tea Party But now? And who knows, maybe this new liberal media smear against trump will turn out to be fake news too
Well, I don't trust any of them, but I thought it would be more intellectually honest to select the group I most agree with: the "establishment" Republicans. Paul Ryan is probably higher on my list than Kushner is. Basically, I fit into that old limited government explanation of conservatism that Trump and his folks seem to have such a problem with. The party needs to rid itself of this alt-right anti-capitalist underbelly soon though, IMO. I've always been practical about my votes: a mixture of 3rd partiers and Rs and Ds depending on the individuals in question and their qualifications, but if the Republican party really is going to become the party of Trump, I'll have to reevaluate.
Two years ago 99.9% of Americans were clueless what the "alt-right" was. The alt-right is anti establishment, anti political correctness and anti revisionist history which comes under being anti political correctness. But one of the criteria being alt-right is being antisemitic. President Trump isn't antisemitic or alt-right. Kushner politically is a Democrat. I was really surprised a couple of years ago that I was visiting some websites for years that published historically correct history and learning that these websites were now alt-right. When reading history always put yourself as if you were there at the time, not holding history to todays standards and any time a historian opines should send up a red flag. This is 100% historically correct history from what is today considered to be an alt-right website. "A Fate Worse Than Death" -> https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/a-fate-worse-than-death/
It wouldn't surprise me: The "barriers" between your twin parties have become quite thin of late. HRC could easily have been a Republican. Like I wrote, I used "Alt-right" to designate the latest current of conservatism, not as any form of judgement on their values. I might have failed. I just checked the term's Wikipedia page, and saw that they focus on the pro-white nationalism movement, surprisingly (for me). Mac-7 used "Tea Party" instead. If you want to use your own, maybe less pejorative denomination, go for it.
Alt-right is anti-white racism, portrayed as racism by the PC left. It is a response to the lefts white privilege racism.
As a Wikipedia editor, I think that their "Alt-Right" page is terribly pejorative, and reductive. Which tends to point out that there are little Alt-Right-minded editors yet at Wikipedia's. I wonder how many "Alt-Right" would react to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
I agree with your definition of the alt right is simply a "laundered" euphamism for neo-nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists and other such scumbags. Not just jew hating, because that's just one of the inferior "races" they enjoy hating and being paranoid about. And of course its in addition to the elitist leftist controlled government plot to deny their god given and constitutional rights, regardless of their nonsensical interpretations and misunderstandings of the constitution to begin with. AS for "historically correct history", did it ever occur to you that STalin and USSR atrocities during ww2 against the germans and the raping of MILLIONS of german women is known to you precisely BECAUSE of historically correct history? Or didja miss dat.
I'm well aware of the atrocities committed by the Soviets during WW ll and have personally known and talked to many Eastern Europeans who lived under both Nazi occupation and Soviet occupation and all preferred German occupation unless they were Jews. My father was a U.S. Marine in the Pacific during WW ll and Marines didn't take prisoners during combat. Kill or be killed was the SOP. I did one tour of combat in Vietnam and there was some things I wasn't proud of. We were never indoctrinated on what was a lawful order or on the Geneva Convention or the rules of war under the Hague, just the U.S. Military Code of Conduct that being captured or surrendering wasn't an option.
I am surprised to read that in vietnam troops had no ROE to follow or no instruction in Geneva. I have a pal who served as a medic in Vietnam and he saw far worse than most saw. I will find out what he has to say on this topic.
We had ROE in Vietnam. The ROE were set by the Vietnam government in Saigon not by the U.S. military. There were free fire zones and restricted fire zones. History says American troop had one hand tied behind their backs in Vietnam because of the ROE. The ROE north of the 17th parallel were set by the White House 10,000 miles away by the LBJ administration that Nixon inherited. The ROE south of the 17th parallel were set by the South Vietnamese government. ROE in Vietnam: Free Fire Zone: No ROE, you can engage the enemy and kill the enemy and using any fire support available (artillery, naval gunfire or close air support) Restricted Fire Zones: Any fire support larger than a 60 mm mortar had to be cleared and approved by the RVN government in Saigon.
The participation to the poll isn't sizeable enough yet, but on this particular board, I'm surprised that Bannon doesn't get more support. Trump's most spectacular elements of his program - the wall, the expulsions, the "swamp" drain - were pretty much his. What happened to these?
UM mea culpa. Actually i conflated another post by a poster of like mind to you, in making my comment on real history. There's a lot of not proud moments for americans in viet nam. It victimized indiscriminately. I think its a feature of every war that is waged by politicians and fought by soldiers. Viet Nam just like Iraq and AFghanistan - never lost a battle but lost the war.
There were many atrocities committed during the Vietnam War, the majority by the NVA and VC but ignored by the left and those atrocities that were committed by the ROK Blue Dragons or Tiger Division were blamed on the American soldiers and Marines. One of the biggest lies during the Vietnam War was a picture. There wasn't an American soldier with in six miles when the photo was taken and the aircraft that naped the vill wasn't American but the RVNAF.
I'm familiar with the myth surrounding the picture. IN fact Kim lives happily in Canada these days, The picture is iconic for the event it portrays - the horrors of war effecting the most innocent, and the seemingly disinterested soldiers innurred to such suffering. Its was the subject matter and composition of the photo, not the circumstances that made it such a powerful icon. The fact it wasn't the USAF that did it does not diminish the statement of the photo itself. No, the atrocities of war were not ignored by the left. In fact, that was one of the driving motivations for stopping it. I wasn't in vietnam (Canada didn't participate) but I was of draft age. As for atrocities, I am positive that most perps had somebody else to blame. OTOH, until you mentioned the koreans I had no idea they were so nasty, but I did know they were tough as nails and very effective fighters. Viet Nam was a clustermuck from the get go and progressively got worse from there. There's a reason fraggin was a leading cause of "non combat" officer deaths and while I only know this from biographies (Lt.Col Herbert comes vividly to mind) apparently a noticeable number of american officers mysteriously got shot in the back.
The lying American media published the photo and reported that the U.S. Air Force napalmed the village.
IMO it is increasingly hard to categorically nail down any political ideology which is, IMO, at least part of the reason that you disagree with the wiki page on alt right FWIW, I have a good friend who has strong alt right political views. And I would say the wiki article on alt right pretty accurately maps onto his views. Apparently your own views do not map onto the wiki article, but there are certainly a lot of people from whom that article is more or less accurate
Ya get whatcher fed. The photo is 100% legit. That it was used for propaganda purposes is another issue entirely. And that is exactly what the myth is. Entirely apropos to this discussion. The new hanks movie about the Ellesberg Papers and the washington post dilemma is now playing. Seems it me it was roughly contemporary to the photo. A monumentally brave first amendment decision that set a new tone of investigative reporting that lead ironically to nixon's demise thru the post in yet another historic decision with deep throat. If it wasn't for that legacy Trump wouldn't be in dire political trouble he's in right now, never mind any legal exposure there may be. Cool connection tho.
I abhor political parties so I'm not a republican. But I am a conservative and I think Trump is the only effective person in your list.
Could you explain: "Trump is his own man" WTF does that mean? That he thinks he's King and only his opinion counts? What?
I get the feeling it wouldn't be the option you'd have chosen. Hopefully there's a poll option more suited to your opinion. Notice that, as a non-Republican, I didn't voted in my own poll.
I never was a big Trump fan, but he has appointed the current Secretary of Energy who has been my favorite among Republicans for a long time -- Rick Perry! He was the highly-successful Governor of the State of Texas for many years. . The best candidate the Republicans could have had since Ronald Reagan.
