4 ms·

I don't think anyone is gleeful about it at all. I think people are freaked out, angry, and frightened and have a right to feel that way. The candidate drew on

by mwfunk 10y ago

I don't think anyone is gleeful about it at all. I think people are freaked out, angry, and frightened and have a right to feel that way. The candidate drew on that extremist faction for support during his campaign, didn't make any effort to distance himself from that extremist faction, and surrounded himself with people that that extremist faction were delighted by during his campaign. Then, after winning, not only does he not distance himself from the people he had previously surrounded himself with, but appears to be following through in terms of appointments and proposed legislation that, again, absolutely delights that extremist faction. I get that the candidate is not a member of that extremist faction, but if that extremist faction adores that candidate and voices strong agreement with every political appointment and policy position, many people have good reason for being a little concerned about it. I don't know why this is so hard for people to grasp. Just because a particular argument is being used by his political opponents for the purpose of discrediting him, doesn't mean that that argument isn't a real issue that people should be very aware of and concerned about.

makomk 10y ago
Except that the extremist faction is tiny, politically irrelevant, and not nearly that happy with his proposed appointments and legislation. For example, the New York Times Editorial Board is currently attacking Trump for failing to denounce a 200-strong white nationalist meeting that's been happening annually in Washington since 2011 and has achieved nothing in that time, organised by a man whose hope for the Trump presidency - as per the NYT's reporting - is that maybe he'll abandon all his actual policies and adopt ones that actually make white nationalists happy. Their only victory so far seems to be getting the NYT to give them a whole bunch of free publicity by quoting them in great detail yesterday.
- JohnTHaller 10y ago
  Except for the fact that Spencer is one of the leaders of the alt right. He even coined the term "alt right". And Bannon turned Breitbart (which my conservative friends derisively call Trumpbart) into a "platform for the alt right" and used it to both get Trump elected and get himself into the White House.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

by mwfunk 10y ago

makomk 10y ago

Except that the extremist faction is tiny, politically irrelevant, and not nearly that happy with his proposed appointments and legislation. For example, the New York Times Editorial Board is currently attacking Trump for failing to denounce a 200-strong white nationalist meeting that's been happening annually in Washington since 2011 and has achieved nothing in that time, organised by a man whose hope for the Trump presidency - as per the NYT's reporting - is that maybe he'll abandon all his actual policies and adopt ones that actually make white nationalists happy. Their only victory so far seems to be getting the NYT to give them a whole bunch of free publicity by quoting them in great detail yesterday.

JohnTHaller 10y ago
Except for the fact that Spencer is one of the leaders of the alt right. He even coined the term "alt right". And Bannon turned Breitbart (which my conservative friends derisively call Trumpbart) into a "platform for the alt right" and used it to both get Trump elected and get himself into the White House.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]