OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
wagdog said:
I admittedly know/knew nothing about breitbart.com until last week (more like yesterday, but whatever). I also knew nothing of Andrew Breitbart, who died very young in 2012. I also knew nothing about the "alt-right" before last week.

What I found (on wikipedia), is that Andrew Breitbart (who was Jewish), started the Breitbart "news" site "with the aim of founding a site that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel". Breitbart.com has a "news bureau" in Jerusalem that presumably(?) still reports news with a pro-Israel slant.

How then does a site started by someone who is Jewish, with the intent of reporting pro-Israel news become a site that is run by a (reportedly) anti-Semite with ties to the alt-right, which is supposedly tied in with white supremacists?

Is there part of the story I'm missing here?

FWIW: I'm asking because I don't know. I'm in the dark here, legitimate question.
Click to expand...

It's right there on Wikipedia:

"conceived by Andrew Breitbart during a visit to Israel in summer 2007, with the aim of founding a site "that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel",[9] Breitbart is aligned with the alt-right,[10] and Bannon declared the site "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016"

Follow the link to the wikipedia page on the alt-right:

In Newsday, Young called the alt-right "a nest of anti-Semitism" inhabited by "white supremacists" who regularly use "repulsive bigotry".[36] Chris Hayes on All In with Chris Hayesdescribed alt-right as a euphemistic term for "essentially modern-day white supremacy."[57] BuzzFeed reporter Rosie Gray described the alt-right as "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times," saying that it uses "aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs" and that it has "more in common with European far-right movements than American ones."[58][59] Yishai Schwartz, writing for Haaretz, described the alt-right as "vitriolically anti-Semitic," saying that "The 'alternative' that the alt-right presents is, in large part, an alternative to acceptance of Jews," and warned that it must be taken seriously as a threat.[60] Chemi Shalev, also writing for Haaretz, has observed that alt-Right supporters of Trump "despise Jewish liberals with same venom that Israeli right detests Jewish leftists".[61]

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Breitbart News has become a popular outlet for alt-right views.[62]
 
wagdog said:
Got that part.

I just don't see how the site supposedly went from being pro-Israel (and still has a bureau in Jerusalem) to being a mouth piece for a movement with ties to white supremacists. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it really seems bizarre and perhaps there is more to the story than simple sound-bites.
Click to expand...

I didn't know who Breitbart or Bannon were until Trump brought him into the campaign this summer. That being said, anyone who gets the endorsement of David Duke is not someone I want as senior advisor. I've seen this movie before.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
I didn't know who Breitbart or Bannon were until Trump brought him into the campaign this summer. That being said, anyone who gets the endorsement of David Duke is not someone I want as senior advisor. I've seen this movie before.
Click to expand...

and i am sure that in 1936, there were folks who said "he is the new chancelor.....get over it"
and everyone got in line and we all know how that ended.

but the problem is.....who's going to come and save us when it all goes horribly wrong?
 
wagdog said:
Got that part.

I just don't see how the site supposedly went from being pro-Israel (and still has a bureau in Jerusalem) to being a mouth piece for a movement with ties to white supremacists. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it really seems bizarre and perhaps there is more to the story than simple sound-bites.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I've never really paid attention to the site as a 'news' or information source so I can't tell you if it started out in its current form or morphed over time based on what generated clicks. The whole tea party & alt-right movements have been morphing over time themselves so I'd assume outlets that appeal to that market morph with it.
 
Lerxst said:
It's right there on Wikipedia:

"conceived by Andrew Breitbart during a visit to Israel in summer 2007, with the aim of founding a site "that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel",[9] Breitbart is aligned with the alt-right,[10] and Bannon declared the site "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016"

Follow the link to the wikipedia page on the alt-right:

In Newsday, Young called the alt-right "a nest of anti-Semitism" inhabited by "white supremacists" who regularly use "repulsive bigotry".[36] Chris Hayes on All In with Chris Hayesdescribed alt-right as a euphemistic term for "essentially modern-day white supremacy."[57] BuzzFeed reporter Rosie Gray described the alt-right as "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times," saying that it uses "aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs" and that it has "more in common with European far-right movements than American ones."[58][59] Yishai Schwartz, writing for Haaretz, described the alt-right as "vitriolically anti-Semitic," saying that "The 'alternative' that the alt-right presents is, in large part, an alternative to acceptance of Jews," and warned that it must be taken seriously as a threat.[60] Chemi Shalev, also writing for Haaretz, has observed that alt-Right supporters of Trump "despise Jewish liberals with same venom that Israeli right detests Jewish leftists".[61]

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Breitbart News has become a popular outlet for alt-right views.[62]
Click to expand...
The part that is confusing to me is the wiki page on the alt-right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right - it's just such a bizarre juxtaposition of ideologies that it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how Breitbart is mixed up in that with its pro-Israel stance, and founder (Breitbart's) Jewish heritage along with people like Joel Pollak on staff.

I just don't get it.
 
In other news, the Dow is really tanking since the election...

upload_2016-11-14_21-2-28.png
 
Chad said:
There is a huge difference in my mind. Did you have any reasonable believe that Al Gore, Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton would launch nuclear missiles? I never once thought Bush, McCain or Romney would. I'm not so sure about Trump. If he does, we all will wish we were right wing nut job preppers.

I'm also not sure why the right hates the left? Are they mad at the left for giving them healthcare? Or lowering unemployment? Making the stock market rise? Is it really as simple as the left is ok with gays and Muslims? And the left is OK with a 43 year old supreme court decision? I'm seriously asking.
Click to expand...
For a majority, yes, it's pretty much that simple.
People choose what they value and vote accordingly. Whether or not their candidate follows through, and that can be said for both sides, is irrelevant. No one, and I literally mean no one, ever votes based on every single issue. They choose what is most important to them and/or affects them directly. All the rest is window dressing.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
 
Chad said:
He campaigned on building a wall, now he says maybe no wall. He said his first act would be to repeal Obamacare now he says he'll probably just amend it. That is back pedaling. Making a promise during your campaign and then going back on it once elected.
Click to expand...
Cause that's never happened before...

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
 
MonkeyZero said:
For a majority, yes, it's pretty much that simple.
People choose what they value and vote accordingly. Whether or not their candidate follows through, and that can be said for both sides, is irrelevant. No one, and I literally mean no one, ever votes based on every single issue. They choose what is most important to them and/or affects them directly. All the rest is window dressing.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

you are right....but lots of people have voted based on ONE issue.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
I'm not ready to make that direct comparison. That said, I'm watching cautiously.
Click to expand...
lemme a sum up.

i don't think trump has any illusions of a repeat. but those he has raised from the woodwork damn sure do.

trump likely isn't the problem.....those who are riding into power on his coat tails are the problem
 
OMG.....on Lucifer, just now....he made a reference to trump.....and he said "oh yea....he's not going now....but....soon"

:eek:
 
mongooz said:
trump likely isn't the problem.....those who are riding into power on his coat tails are the problem
Click to expand...

I think it’s likely that Trump is just too clueless to understand how dangerous his extremist followers are. He grew up wealthy. He’s probably never had a serious conversation with a klansman, an eschaton maniac, or a devout Christianist. He probably never even bothered to read a Village Voice column about racist NYPD cops, or how the NYFD manipulates its hiring system to keep out blacks. That makes Trump terribly dangerous, because he’s liable to appoint an attorney general who either doesn’t take white extremists seriously or aligns with them. Which means the DOJ could spend four years looking the other way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top