So, who gets custody of the kids?

With Trump and Bannon going from an amicable separation (We're still close friends and committed to the same goals) to a very nasty and public divorce, what is a so-called "Deplorable" to do?
«1

Comments

  • Ignore it.

    It’s a firecracker in a cornfield.
  • It's speculatively entertaining. Bannon has made it clear that he wants to have a greater hand in the political theater. Where they butt heads (like they did with Moore), it will be interesting to see where those votes go.
  • edited January 2018
    I heard an interesting observation from Chuck Todd on radio this morning on the way in.

    He believes that much of the talent in the campaign had a plan for what they would do for after the election, and that plan didn't include DJT winning, which contributed to greater than ordinary disorganization after the election.  He characterized the DJT campaign as similar to The Producers in which the worst thing that can happen is for the play to succeed. 

    That's tangential to the subject of Bannon and DJT having little further use for one another, but it does highlight the difference between a coherent political party in which people mostly have the same goals (and which seems to mostly work well with DJT) and the role of a cultural and political critic like Bannon, Milo, Coulter, Kristol, Lowry, Kinsley or McInnes.  When people bitched about National Review opposing DJT in the general, Lowry noted that it wasn't his role to get DJT elected, but to set forth with reasonable fidelity to conservative philosophy a political critique.

    People get into problems when they don't know their roles.  Peggy Noonan could write a great speech three decades ago, but she isn't much of a political analyst and she's a terrible speaker.  Bannon had a media niche and understood DJT's appeal early on.  That doesn't make him a good advisor or staffer.


  • Seabird said:

    It's speculatively entertaining. Bannon has made it clear that he wants to have a greater hand in the political theater. Where they butt heads (like they did with Moore), it will be interesting to see where those votes go.

    Bannon had to back Moore.

    Ben Shapiro has opined that Bannon was wrong to do so because of "credible accusations" against Moore, but the truth is that of the 6 allegations made, 4 were actually just young but of legal age and 1 turned out to be fake. (The yearbook accuser who hooked up with Gloria Allred)

    Side note: Interesting that the same people who defended Jerry Seinfeld and his 18 year old girlfriend with the big tits somehow found it reprehensible that a 32 year old man in the rural south date a willing 16 or 17 year old with her parents permission.

    Side note to the side note: Even today, in most places in rural America, a "upstanding" man is expected to establish himself financially FIRST and THEN get married and have children. To paraphrase; 'Be fruitful and THEN multiply'.

    Back to Roy Moore...
    That left only ONE accuser that was both underage and had not been de-bunked, although you'll notice that it hasn't gone anywhere.

    More importantly, Bannon knew something that many people don't want to acknowledge and deal with...

    Democrats have WEAPONIZED the allegation and it's second only to accusations of racism in their playbook.

    In the absence of any actual EVIDENCE, Moore NEEDED to be backed to the hilt BECAUSE the use of allegations as a weapon had to be pushed back against.

    In other words, it was a STRATEGIC decision, not a TACTICAL one.
  • edited January 2018
    nbody said:


    He believes that much of the talent in the campaign had a plan for what they would do for after the election, and that plan didn't include DJT winning, which contributed to greater than ordinary disorganization after the election.  He characterized the DJT campaign as similar to The Producers in which the worst thing that can happen is for the play to succeed. 


    This was my take on it early on in the primaries. I saw this whole initiative as Trump looking to increase his personal brand and victory came as a shock. What I am curious about is whether those who supported the administration will find his type of leadership (?) appealing or will they continue to follow Bannon's less substantive dissident rhetoric. Especially when those two things are at odds with one another.


  • MC Escher said:

    Seabird said:

    It's speculatively entertaining. Bannon has made it clear that he wants to have a greater hand in the political theater. Where they butt heads (like they did with Moore), it will be interesting to see where those votes go.

    Bannon had to back Moore.
    DJT backed Moore in the general. He backed Strange in the primary.

    Anyone know what was wrong with Strange? I didn't follow the primary, but Strange seemed like a solid candidate.
  • Strange = Swamp Creature
  • There isn't a lot of information in that description.  I understand that Moore had notoriety stemming from the 10 Commandments monument case, his removal from the judiciary and his reaction to Obergafell. 

    Strange has a superlative NRA score, supports withdrawl from the Paris Accord, and was backed by DJT.
  • If Strange = Swamp Creature, why did Trump support him?
  • nbody said:



    ...He characterized the DJT campaign as similar to The Producers in which the worst thing that can happen is for the play to succeed... 





    Ignoring the topic of the thread, this is a funny observation.


    But I am disappointed no one has worked in a "Springtime For Hitler" joke yet.
  • Seabird said:

    If Strange = Swamp Creature, why did Trump support him?

    I would assume it was because his calculus was different than Bannon's.
  • edited January 2018
    vwtool said:

    nbody said:



    ...He characterized the DJT campaign as similar to The Producers in which the worst thing that can happen is for the play to succeed... 





    Ignoring the topic of the thread, this is a funny observation.


    But I am disappointed no one has worked in a "Springtime For Hitler" joke yet.



    A bit on the nose, don't you think?
  • MC Escher said:

    Seabird said:

    If Strange = Swamp Creature, why did Trump support him?

    I would assume it was because his calculus was different than Bannon's.



    Given the volatility of the election, that's understating it.
  • So Mercer signaled that she's done with Bannon and now he's out at Breitbart. He really shot himself in the foot.
  • Did he though...?

    This is nothing more than a gut level feeling but I can't help thinking this feels an awful lot like Kabuki theater.
  • Yeah, I think he did. I don't find meaning under meaning under meaning under meaning in otherwise pretty obvious events. I have had personal history with aggressive personalities whose drive can be productive until they slip the leash. Then they're very destructive.
  • edited January 2018
    OK, then why did he leave Breitbart?

    EDIT: By that I mean; what function did it serve?
  • Because his particular brand became too toxic. He:

    -got dupped by a muckraking writer (Wolff)
    -stabbed Trump in the back in a very public way
    -stabbed Trump's family in the back in a very public way
    -meddled in a senate election and is partially, if not totally, responsible for losing a seat in perhaps the reddest state in the country

    I think that the controversy around him simply over shadows his utility right now. I think he'll be back, but maybe not in the way most would assume. I believe that he is a naked opportunist and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't pull a David Brock or Arianna Huffington and switch sides if it would benefit him personally.
  • edited January 2018
    MC Escher said:

    ...the truth is that of the 6 allegations made, 4 were actually just young but of legal age and 1 turned out to be fake...




    And you're ignoring the two allegations coming from 14-year olds, which ups the "Ewwww!" factory considerably.
  • edited January 2018
    Seabird said:

    ...He:

    -got dupped by a muckraking writer (Wolff)
    -stabbed Trump in the back in a very public way
    -stabbed Trump's family in the back in a very public way
    -meddled in a senate election and is partially, if not totally, responsible for losing a seat in perhaps the reddest state in the country

    ...




    There's also the elephant-in-the-room possibility that he's simply not that smart. Once he left the safe confines of his internet bubble, he didn't do so well in an oxygenated environment.
  • vwtool said:

    MC Escher said:

    ...the truth is that of the 6 allegations made, 4 were actually just young but of legal age and 1 turned out to be fake...




    And you're ignoring the two allegations coming from 14-year olds, which ups the "Ewwww!" factory considerably.
    No I’m not. One of the two allegations involving 14 year olds turned out to be fake and the other never proceeded beyond the allegation.
  • Seabird said:

    Because his particular brand became too toxic. He:

    -got dupped by a muckraking writer (Wolff)
    -stabbed Trump in the back in a very public way
    -stabbed Trump's family in the back in a very public way
    -meddled in a senate election and is partially, if not totally, responsible for losing a seat in perhaps the reddest state in the country

    I think that the controversy around him simply over shadows his utility right now. I think he'll be back, but maybe not in the way most would assume. I believe that he is a naked opportunist and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't pull a David Brock or Arianna Huffington and switch sides if it would benefit him personally.

    None of what you said actually answers my question.
  • vwtool said:







    There's also the elephant-in-the-room possibility that he's simply not that smart. Once he left the safe confines of his internet bubble, he didn't do so well in an oxygenated environment.

    Thank you for demonstrating that you don’t know anything about Bannon.

  • MC Escher said:

    ...Thank you for demonstrating that you don’t know anything about Bannon.




    I know he helped elect a Democrat in Alabama. That's some next-level political genius, there.
  • MC Escher said:

    Seabird said:


    None of what you said actually answers my question.
    I guess that I didn't understand the question.
  • edited January 2018
    It's possible that people in politics don't understand how large a footprint entertainment has in the culture, and that people in entertainment don't understand some of the trends in political culture.  Regular business, show business and politics are related but different things.  Many repubs and conservatives found DJT's appeal elusive, but the man had the better understanding of popular communication.

    Didn't Bannon make most of his personal money in television?  I can imagine that a feel for public entertainment and a grasp on an underserved audience could only go so far in news and politics.  If he has worn out his welcome at the WH so that he doesn't lay any claim to direct influence, then has been snookered by Wolf into alienating the audience he had tried to cultivate, his stock might have gone low enough that the people at Breitbart saw the opportunity to show him the door.
  • Seabird said:

    MC Escher said:

    Seabird said:


    None of what you said actually answers my question.
    I guess that I didn't understand the question.


    What function did it serve?



  • vwtool said:

    MC Escher said:

    ...Thank you for demonstrating that you don’t know anything about Bannon.




    I know he helped elect a Democrat in Alabama. That's some next-level political genius, there.

    No, that was the GOP that did that.

    But then, you don't pay attention to what your OWN party is doing, why would you pay attention to the other guys?
  • nbody said:



    Didn't Bannon make most of his personal money in television? 


    Read his wikipedia page.

    Despite being riddled with the expected errors, silliness and outright stupidy you might expect, the first 3 sections...
    1. Early life and education
    2. Service as naval officer
    3. Business career
    ...are a reasonably useful synopsis of his career prior to the Trump campaign.

    Don't bother with the rest.

  • MC Escher said:

    ...Don't bother with the rest.




    Why not? Are there NO sources of information you trust?
Sign In or Register to comment.