Here's Evidence Steve Bannon Joined a Facebook Group That Posts Racist Rants and Obama Death Threats

[ninja007]

Stephen Bannon, whom Donald Trump tapped as his chief strategist in the White House, has come under fire for his self-admitted promotion of the alt-right, a haven of white nationalists, when he was head of far-right Breitbart News. His defenders have insisted Bannon is no racist or anti-Semite. But Mother Jones has uncovered another clue about Bannon's political personality: Bannon joined a conservative Facebook group that has featured racist and extreme material. This material includes posts urging a military coup against President Barack Obama, featuring an image of the president dressed as an SS officer, celebrating the Confederate flag, highlighting a photoshopped picture of Obama with watermelons, praising a police officer who called Obama a "F*cking ******," and calling for Obama to be "executed as a traitor."

This Facebook group is for an outfit called Vigilant Patriots, which claims its goals are defending and upholding the Constitution and preserving "our history and culture." As of Friday morning, it listed nearly 3,600 members, including Stephen Bannon, who apparently joined the group seven years ago.

More: Here's evidence Steve Bannon joined a Facebook group that posts racist rants and Obama death threats

There is more in the above link - if your stomach can stand it.

you stupid fuck! Obama sat under a pastor who said 100 times worse!

 

[xyz]

Democrats want to nominate an anti-semite who befriends radical "Nation of Islam" leader Louis Farrakhan as congressional minority leader and they worry about a alleged Facebook group membership by a guy who used to make a living monitoring a hundred Facebook groups and every other part of the media? You have to be kidding.

You're SOOO full of shit.

First of all, your dudes were massively quoting Malcolm X about the Democrats , even though it wasn't a recent quote (obviously).

Second, calling for the assassination of Obama should get some agents straight to Steven Bannon's door and have him investigated. In theory, if there was no corruption.

Third, Facebook is a major source of false news and propaganda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/o...-the-digital-virus-called-fake-news.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/o...-the-digital-virus-called-fake-news.html?_r=0

 

[Fueri]

Well this thread, and my post to which you responded, was about this particular Facebook page.

I see no evidence presented that the page itself is racist, nor that Bannon actively participated in any such racist discussion on that page.

I called it bunk, because it looked like bunk. And it still does.

Perhaps, but then again this Bannon guy doesn't seem to be the nicest of guys.

Firstly there's his ex-wife saying that Bannon didn't want his girls going to school with Jews.

Trump campaign CEO Stephen Bannon denies antisemitic remarks

She said it in court as well.

"In sworn court declaration following their divorce in 2007, Bannon’s ex-wife said he ‘didn’t want the girls going to school with Jews’"

There's a guy called Ben Shapiro. He's a conservative, worked for Breitbart and claims that Bannon likes white supremacy.

I Know Trump's New Campaign Chairman, Steve Bannon. Here's What You Need To Know.

"5. Under Bannon’s Leadership, Breitbart Openly Embraced The White Supremacist Alt-Right."

How much this gets to be a promotion of white supremacy, how much this might just be small things, I don't know. Maybe it's a guy who hates Bannon and wants a little revenge. The problem here is that Bannon has been tainted by something and it's probably going to cause Trump problems.

The funny thing is that Trump supporters are demanding the media be unbiased, and yet Trump's main ear is in charge of a website that is as biased as hell. Kind of sums up Trump really.

Still irrelevant relative to the veracity of the op of this thread.

you could, I suppose, start a new thread making a general accusation that he's a racist or whatever, but I've made no argument one way or another on that.

I didn't start the thread, I'm participating in it. I didn't making any unfounded accusations, I'm merely putting my view across on the topic.

Which is what I did, specifically commenting on the op of the thread itself. your comments are directed at me in response to my comments, which is why I'm responding although they make no logical sense in terms of what I've actually said.

I didn't claim Bannon was or wasn't anything. I claimed that the op was unfounded nonsense, which it stills seems to be, so if you'd like to make some other point go right ahead, but it would make more sense either as a comment to someone that might have said something closer to that or in its own thread, or even as a stand alone comment, but i do not see how it relates to anything I've said here.

So what you're trying to say is, if someone comments on the OP but makes claims, that people like me can't basically say your claims are wrong? Then we'll have chaos. You're trying to stifle the debate of things that have been said to support the argument of someone.

Nonsense. if you want to argue my claims, argue my claims. you have yet to do that. I don't know how many times I have to point out that my issue was clearly with the veracity of this op, which was tied to this supposedly racist FB page.

What you've done instead is a classic srawman, you've argued something else entirely and now seem to be expecting me to argue that and now accuse me of attempting to stifle debate because I refuse to be baited by your logical fallacy.

Go fish.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Perhaps, but then again this Bannon guy doesn't seem to be the nicest of guys.

Firstly there's his ex-wife saying that Bannon didn't want his girls going to school with Jews.

Trump campaign CEO Stephen Bannon denies antisemitic remarks

She said it in court as well.

"In sworn court declaration following their divorce in 2007, Bannon’s ex-wife said he ‘didn’t want the girls going to school with Jews’"

There's a guy called Ben Shapiro. He's a conservative, worked for Breitbart and claims that Bannon likes white supremacy.

I Know Trump's New Campaign Chairman, Steve Bannon. Here's What You Need To Know.

"5. Under Bannon’s Leadership, Breitbart Openly Embraced The White Supremacist Alt-Right."

How much this gets to be a promotion of white supremacy, how much this might just be small things, I don't know. Maybe it's a guy who hates Bannon and wants a little revenge. The problem here is that Bannon has been tainted by something and it's probably going to cause Trump problems.

The funny thing is that Trump supporters are demanding the media be unbiased, and yet Trump's main ear is in charge of a website that is as biased as hell. Kind of sums up Trump really.

Still irrelevant relative to the veracity of the op of this thread.

you could, I suppose, start a new thread making a general accusation that he's a racist or whatever, but I've made no argument one way or another on that.

I didn't start the thread, I'm participating in it. I didn't making any unfounded accusations, I'm merely putting my view across on the topic.

Which is what I did, specifically commenting on the op of the thread itself. your comments are directed at me in response to my comments, which is why I'm responding although they make no logical sense in terms of what I've actually said.

I didn't claim Bannon was or wasn't anything. I claimed that the op was unfounded nonsense, which it stills seems to be, so if you'd like to make some other point go right ahead, but it would make more sense either as a comment to someone that might have said something closer to that or in its own thread, or even as a stand alone comment, but i do not see how it relates to anything I've said here.

So what you're trying to say is, if someone comments on the OP but makes claims, that people like me can't basically say your claims are wrong? Then we'll have chaos. You're trying to stifle the debate of things that have been said to support the argument of someone.

Nonsense. if you want to argue my claims, argue my claims. you have yet to do that. I don't know how many times I have to point out that my issue was clearly with the veracity of this op, which was tied to this supposedly racist FB page.

What you've done instead is a classic srawman, you've argued something else entirely and now seem to be expecting me to argue that and now accuse me of attempting to stifle debate because I refuse to be baited by your logical fallacy.

Go fish.

Or in other words you don't want people attacking the points you're making... right....

 

[Fueri]

Still irrelevant relative to the veracity of the op of this thread.

you could, I suppose, start a new thread making a general accusation that he's a racist or whatever, but I've made no argument one way or another on that.

I didn't start the thread, I'm participating in it. I didn't making any unfounded accusations, I'm merely putting my view across on the topic.

Which is what I did, specifically commenting on the op of the thread itself. your comments are directed at me in response to my comments, which is why I'm responding although they make no logical sense in terms of what I've actually said.

I didn't claim Bannon was or wasn't anything. I claimed that the op was unfounded nonsense, which it stills seems to be, so if you'd like to make some other point go right ahead, but it would make more sense either as a comment to someone that might have said something closer to that or in its own thread, or even as a stand alone comment, but i do not see how it relates to anything I've said here.

So what you're trying to say is, if someone comments on the OP but makes claims, that people like me can't basically say your claims are wrong? Then we'll have chaos. You're trying to stifle the debate of things that have been said to support the argument of someone.

Nonsense. if you want to argue my claims, argue my claims. you have yet to do that. I don't know how many times I have to point out that my issue was clearly with the veracity of this op, which was tied to this supposedly racist FB page.

What you've done instead is a classic srawman, you've argued something else entirely and now seem to be expecting me to argue that and now accuse me of attempting to stifle debate because I refuse to be baited by your logical fallacy.

Go fish.

Or in other words you don't want people attacking the points you're making... right....

No, I want them to argue those points, not make other points and expect me to argue those, which is exactly what you've done, repeatedly, despite nearly every single response I've made to you pointing this out.

Even your latest post does the same. "In other words" No, not in other words, in my words. Again, you do not in any way argue what I've said, but present something else entirely in yet another example of a classic strawman. If you don't get that I don't give a damn.

here you go, as you seem to need a primer in logic: Your logical fallacy is strawman

"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Good Lord.... somebody's hitting the firewater early.. slow day at the casino Injun Jane?

 

[dannyboys]

America will fight back against the racist Trump mafia!

Suuuuuure the LIB 'man-bun' 'Metro-pussies' will fight back! Suuuuure.
With what? empty latte cups?

 

[kwc57]

Stephen Bannon, whom Donald Trump tapped as his chief strategist in the White House, has come under fire for his self-admitted promotion of the alt-right, a haven of white nationalists, when he was head of far-right Breitbart News. His defenders have insisted Bannon is no racist or anti-Semite. But Mother Jones has uncovered another clue about Bannon's political personality: Bannon joined a conservative Facebook group that has featured racist and extreme material. This material includes posts urging a military coup against President Barack Obama, featuring an image of the president dressed as an SS officer, celebrating the Confederate flag, highlighting a photoshopped picture of Obama with watermelons, praising a police officer who called Obama a "F*cking ******," and calling for Obama to be "executed as a traitor."

This Facebook group is for an outfit called Vigilant Patriots, which claims its goals are defending and upholding the Constitution and preserving "our history and culture." As of Friday morning, it listed nearly 3,600 members, including Stephen Bannon, who apparently joined the group seven years ago.

More: Here's evidence Steve Bannon joined a Facebook group that posts racist rants and Obama death threats

There is more in the above link - if your stomach can stand it.

It really would have been a lot easier if Donald Trump would have flown to Afghanistan, gathered up some Taliwackers for his administration and just called it good.

Every dam one of them have serious issues, either they're racist, misogynists, or religious zealots, or a combination of all three. Bent on hell fire to oppress and or control others and their personal lives. They're all white male Reich wingers from the debts of hell.

Don't clutch your pearls too tightly Nancy, you might break the strand.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Liberals and race baiters trying to say im not sensible, hahahahha. And yes I am, I voted for Donald J Trump.

You're not. And you know you're not. But to admit it would be for you to be sensible. So you don't. And yes, we know you voted for Trump, all the people who see politics as their main entertainment station did so.

If that isnt the definition of projection. You guys are the ones that protest everything, insert politics into everything like sports, fashion, musica, ect.

No you guys are the ones that live politics 24/7.

And yes you guys are race baiters and try to inject that into everything.

So if you want a real.discussion, you need to be honest first.

"you guys", who are "you guys" exactly?

I mean you're talking about being "honest" and yet you're tell me I'm "you guys". I don't really associate myself with other people.

You guys = leftwingers

So you're lumping all left wingers into the same group? That's not so sensible, is it? Especially seeing as what you're talking about, most left wingers don't do this.

I love this, am I putting all leftwingers into a groups. Yes its called the leftwing.
If you dont like what leftwingers do, denounce them. Fuck Trump has had to de enough the KKK, a.million times this year, so denounce your crazy ass folks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're not. And you know you're not. But to admit it would be for you to be sensible. So you don't. And yes, we know you voted for Trump, all the people who see politics as their main entertainment station did so.

If that isnt the definition of projection. You guys are the ones that protest everything, insert politics into everything like sports, fashion, musica, ect.

No you guys are the ones that live politics 24/7.

And yes you guys are race baiters and try to inject that into everything.

So if you want a real.discussion, you need to be honest first.

"you guys", who are "you guys" exactly?

I mean you're talking about being "honest" and yet you're tell me I'm "you guys". I don't really associate myself with other people.

You guys = leftwingers

So you're lumping all left wingers into the same group? That's not so sensible, is it? Especially seeing as what you're talking about, most left wingers don't do this.

I love this, am I putting all leftwingers into a groups. Yes its called the leftwing.
If you dont like what leftwingers do, denounce them. Fuck Trump has had to de enough the KKK, a.million times this year, so denounce your crazy ass folks.

There are a few things that all left wingers do. Breathing, shitting, pissing, possibly eating. But you decided that all left wingers are "race baiters". Come on then, prove it. You made a claim, you want to stand by it, prove it.