[yolesaber]

>Why can't you give this man a chance?

I did. Then he immediately brought on a white nationalist as his closest advisor and is apparently going to name a southern good ol' boy who thinks marijuana is straight up the devil as his Attorney General. Chance thoroughly blown.

[powertower]

He hasn't even been sworn-in as president yet, but you've given him a chance.

[cylinder]

What is a white nationalist? Is it just a nationalist who happens to be white? Is nationalist on its own supposed to be a negative descriptor? If so then it follows that logically internationalists are the preferred people by default?

Also is it possible to be in favor of limited controlled immigration programs and not be called a racist? What happens if the person isn't white, like me, am I also a racist? Can I be a white nationalist who isn't white?

[chillwaves]

You really don't know? Did you spend any time at all trying to answer your question? Your post feels disingenuous, but if you are being serious, here you go.

> White nationalism is an ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity.[1] Proponents of the ideology identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.[2] It ranges from a preference for one's specific white ethnic group, to feelings of superiority, including calls for national citizenship to be reserved for white people.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

[eternalban]

> What is a white nationalist?

Curious, isn't it?

I first saw this term in the establishment press -- White Nationalist -- last week. To me, it seems to be an attempt to conflate White Supremacists with Nationalists. It is possibly an amusing pastime to substitute various candidate Xs into "<X> Nationalist" and consider the possibilities.

As for Bannon, that guy looks like he walked out of CIA central casting, with patrons in Goldman Sachs. Such wonderful straw(wo)men to co-opt genuine grievances of people.

[exo762]

Obama's Attorney General did anything to legalize? "White nationalist" as Trump's advisor is worse than taking donations for presidential campaign from foreign powers? What he can do? Reintroduce slavery? For real?

[AnOscelot]

Dislike Obama all you want, but he's let the states experiment with legalization. He's freed some people sentenced to harsh terms for non-violent drug offenses. I expect a huge wave of pardons and commutations of other non-violent offenders as his term ends.

As for Trump, he's put a nazi (or alt-right if you prefer) in the White House. He's nominated another racist for AG: Sessions who was considered too racist to be a judge, in a confirmation hearing in 1986. The judiciary committee was led by none other than Strom Thurmond. Thurmond and company thought he was too racist. Thurmond! Let that sink in.

Speaking of foreign donations, the President-Elect has 'invited' foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump Hotel (the Old Post Office) in DC. Which they are doing so in an effort to gain favor with the new administration. Profits from their stays, of course, goes straight to Trump. Unfortunately for him, this will be quite illegal, and un-Constitutional according to the emoluments clause, as soon as he takes office. This clause will also apply to his foreign holdings, many of which remain in the dark because Trump has decided to be as non-transparent as possible.

[FireBeyond]

"Profits from their stays, of course, goes straight to Trump. Unfortunately for him, this will be quite illegal, and un-Constitutional according to the emoluments clause, as soon as he takes office."

Of course, once in office, those businesses will be administered by the "blind" trust run by his children... and Trump wants to stay in New York a few days a week to "be around his family"... where of course, they won't possibly talk business, right? (That's if they're not accompanying him around the world, be it Ivanka joining in meetings with Japanese dignitaries, his sons being part of his transition team, or peddling his son-in-law as one of his advisors - someone so ignorant of the operation of government that until after the election, he apparently didn't realize that Trump would have to hire advisors to replace Obama's...).

What could possibly be untoward about any of that...?

[mattst88]

> The judiciary committee was led by none other than Strom Thurmond. Thurmond and company thought he was too racist. Thurmond! Let that sink in.

Mentioning Thurmond is simply misleading and detracts from the main point that Sessions was rejected from a federal judgeship because of concerns that he was a racist.

The fact of the matter is that Thurmond voted for Sessions.

> On June 5, 1986, the Committee voted 10–8 against recommending the nomination to the Senate floor, with Republican Senators Charles Mathias of Maryland and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voting with the Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions

[75j]

> but he's let the states experiment with legalization

Not really. Under Obama the federal government raided hundreds (if not thousands) of legal dispensaries and grow operations, and spent hundreds of millions in doing so.

[debaserab2]

So, it's somehow okay in your worldview to put a self-described racist in one of the most important government positions because he "can't reintroduce slavery"? For real?

[alphapapa]

> a self-described racist

Man, even after losing the election, the left still hasn't changed its record. "-ist -ist -ist, -phobe -phobe -phobe!" Most of the electorate doesn't buy it anymore.

[debaserab2]

I don't know how I became a "part of the left" because I used a word to describe a person that matches the definition of the word. Do you assume to know this much about every person's political ideologies based on their choice of words?

Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon?

[alphapapa]

I don't know where you lie on the political spectrum. My comment was an observation of current trends, of which your comment seems to be an example. :)

> Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon?

Person. Respectfully, I reject the question, which implies that anyone can or should be labeled by a single word. This is part of the problem with American politics. It degrades discussion into "Is not!"/"Is too!" back-and-forth, which is useless.

Here's my bottom line: this election has shown how extremely biased the media is. Despite a few columns here and there calling for the media to examine itself and change its ways, the media has not changed. One should take everything one hears about Trump and his administration with many grains of salt.

For example, I watched Don Lemon on CNN excoriate Bannon, taking the default position that he is a racist, sexist, anti-Semite, and demanding that one of his guests (the other two of which were anti-Bannon) prove that Bannon was not any of those things. That is not journalism--that is libel.

[debaserab2]

> This is part of the problem with American politics. It degrades discussion into "Is not!"/"Is too!" back-and-forth, which is useless.

That's funny, because I was just thinking the problem was the tendency for people to look at an opinion and immediately apply partisan politics to it. Since you decided to deflect the question instead of answer it, I'll just say this: it's really disappointing to me that there's apparently no room to not agree with any major political party.

I'm watching the absolute mockery that is being made of the front office of our government right now, and I'm extremely disturbed, embarrassed, and pessimistic. The media didn't make Steve Bannon the leader of the alt-right movement, Steve Bannon did[1]. I know for sure that I do not agree with any of the elements of the alt right movement that I've observed (either self-proclaimed or through the media).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right#Commentary

[Dylan16807]

>Person. Respectfully, I reject the question, which implies that anyone can or should be labeled by a single word.

Oh my god, you know what the question meant. Describe his views related to race.

[chillwaves]

> Most of the electorate doesn't buy it anymore.

Trump lost the popular vote.

[rdtsc]

> Trump lost the popular vote.

Ok but what does that prove or show? Didn't Hillary know she was supposed to get the electoral college votes? I hear many mention that, but doesn't that just make Hillary's team look more incompetent.

[alphapapa]

This is actually a very interesting point. While the current raw data seems to show that this is the case, there are several mitigating factors, some of which could even completely reverse it:

1. In at least some states, absentee ballots are not counted unless their number is greater than the difference between the counted results. Some have claimed that absentee ballots historically favor the Republican party. If this is so, it could be that, were all the absentee ballots counted, Clinton would not win the popular vote.

2. It's been claimed that about 3 million non-citizens voted in the election (lawsuits pending--we shall see). Obviously, the vast majority of non-citizens would vote for Clinton. Therefore, if this is true, Clinton did not win the popular vote at all.

3. It's interesting to note that if Los Angeles County alone were not counted in the results, Trump would win the popular vote. And Los Angeles is a sanctuary city.

Of course, it's a matter of opinion whether a few, densely packed urban environments, many of which are sanctuary cities for non-citizens, should be able to effectively overturn the vote of the rest of the country.

So the "Clinton won the popular vote" point is not as straightforward as it may seem.

[mikeash]

It has also been claimed that every single person who voted for Trump was actually an extraterrestrial wearing a convincing human suit. "It's been claimed" isn't exactly convincing.

(For anyone who wants a source on that claim, it's me, I'm claiming it here.)