Understanding the United States of America (USA) - IV

[CRamS]

They will name a group of countries including TSP.

Lets take a friendly bet. First of all, this whole registry business will be some diluted BS, just enforcing existing laws like Obama did. But TSP will not be in the group of countries. Look at Trump & Co. Do you really think they have any clue about the world, much less TSP? As hard core nationalists, they follow like sheep what US military brass, Pentagon, CIA etc tell them.

In a way, all of Trump's demagoguery will be reminiscent of what happened in India post surgical strike against TSP. Congoons said "me too" but we just didn't brag about it because we are "responsible" and "secular" onlee. Likewise, Dems will claim that Trump is just enforcing existing laws like they did but with ugly rhetoric targeting Muslims and Hispanics and other minorities.

As I keep emphasizing, US is like a well oiled machine. Both dems and reps will do the same thing when it comes to US interests, albeit with different emphasis and different outlooks. Only difference between the 2 is the reps are hard-core white Christian nationalists, with Trump & Co being far right extreme versions, while dems are not as shrill in their pronouncements. And given the demands of a capitalist economy, some notions of trade, cheap labor, be it high-tech or low-tech from people of color will be welcomed by both.

[ramana]

US military and Pentagon are very clear about Pak role in terrorism.

Lets see.

[Dipanker]

the problem with the 3 million deported? .....is that a lot of them come right back and live in sanctuary cities.......we have very porous borders.....

Porous border is a big misnomer. It used to be porous once upon a time, that is no longer the case, the Tortilla Curtain is firmly in place now.
Wall and border fencing alone cover more than 1/3 of the entire length of the border. They cover all of populated area and some unpopulated area. Then there is virtual fence of camera, motion sensors and drone, which again cover substantial chunk of the border. The rest of the border has natural barrier and are hostile to crossing. An estimated 5,000 have died in last 10 years so crossing the border.

Lastly there are 20,000+ border patrol agents manning the border.

[UlanBatori]

Wonder what happens when Mexico becomes The Islamic Republic of Montezumastan.

What to do? V r boor country onlee! Victim of terrorism and drug trade onlee! Need F-35s to fight terrists!

[svinayak]

Big pys ops article linking Trump with Modi again
Pak is the worst Islamic supremacist country promoting genocide on Hindus

Why Trump is a major threat to Muslims in the world’s largest democracy too

Modi is a Hindu nationalist, which isn’t that much different from white supremacy in the U.S. Here’s the basic ideology: India is a Hindu country. Everyone else must assimilate to Hindu culture. Muslims are bad and trying to take over our country. In India, that ideology is enshrined in Modi’s political party (the BJP) while in the U.S. that kind of overt racism was unacceptable in political discourse until recently. While Modi’s rise to power and the ideology of his party is troubling, it’s worth noting that a secular party (the Indian National Congress) has dominated Indian politics since the country’s independence from Britain.

The upshot: Trump’s rise bad for Muslims in India. Due to concerns about reversing India’s tradition of secular government, Modi largely kept his campaign rhetoric secular and focused on a message of good government and economic growth. Not surprisingly, his rise to power has hurt Muslims, but Trump’s win could embolden Modi and his party to adopt more anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies with less fear of repercussions from the international community.

http://fusion.net/story/358548/trump-re ... coalition/

[Manish_Sharma]

^^Svinayak ji, please add writer "By Ashley Dejean" in your post too, this way BRFites don't have to click on this poisonous site and give them hits.

[Austin]

Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report


https://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo Washington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee’s Majority released a mark of its investigative report:

“Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were heroes who gave their lives in service to our country. Their bravery and the courageous actions of so many others on the ground that night should be honored.
“When the Select Committee was formed, I promised to conduct this investigation in a manner worthy of the American people’s respect, and worthy of the memory of those who died. That is exactly what my colleagues and I have done.
“Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions. You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.”
The committee’s proposed report is just over 800 pages long and is comprised of five primary sections and 12 appendices. It details relevant events in 2011 and 2012.
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]

A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]

None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]

The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”
Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.”
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:

Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]

The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]

Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]

According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]

On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]

After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]

Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]

The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]

A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”
Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”

[Austin]

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part III:

During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]

The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]

When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]

In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]

Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]

In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

Rep. Susan Brooks (IN-05) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“One of the most concerning parts of the State Department’s policy in Libya was its reliance upon the militias of an unstable nation to protect our men and women in Benghazi. These were by no means forces that could adequately protect Americans on the ground, and the State Department knew it. But the appearance of no boots on the ground was more important to the administration.”
Part IV of the report reveals new information about the Select Committee’s requests and subpoenas seeking documents and witnesses regarding Benghazi and Libya, and details what the Obama administration provided to Congress, what it is still withholding, and how its serial delays hindered the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth.
Part V proposes 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence Community, and Congress aimed at strengthening security for American personnel serving abroad and doing everything possible to ensure something like Benghazi never happens again, and if it does, that we are better prepared to respond.
The Select Committee intends to convene a bipartisan markup to discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. All members of the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House.
Letter from Chairman Trey Gowdy to Speaker Paul Ryan
FACT SHEET: The Benghazi Committee's Investigation - By the Numbers
Below is the full report with links to PDF files of each section. (Update 7/8/16: Following the committee’s vote to make its proposed report final, the links to the PDFs below were updated to reflect the final versions that will be filed in the House.)

[Austin]

Hillary Trying to Whitewash herself from Benghazi incident , Watch this interesting conversation as she gets

[Yagnasri]

With Mit Romney, DT may be trying to make peace with Deep State. But I expect him to totally ignore objections of MSM on any or his cabinet picks.

[hnair]

Sorry, ramana. The excuse I heard the other day was that the above list of countries was "unlike Pakistan where we have excellent vetting in place"

Too many US jarnails and baboon/baboonis are 'on the take' from TSP. Elephant and donkey alike.

Hmmm.... this is why I have been unable to see the adulation that Shree Trump seems to be getting from lots of folks in BRF. Shree Trump will be surrounded by handpicked personnel from the same pool that always coddled Pakistani military's chonies.

My comment when I heard that Hooolsee is in the running:

This is exactly what troubles me, this slinking back of the mangy old curs who used to bark from the shadows during Cold War for the paki generals.

That a sub-par James Woolsey is actually still talking on TV itself is kind of disappointing, let alone being listened to by Shree Trump. All that remains is for that Anthony Z-inn-i to plonk his child-bearing hips down as some important cabinet position

There is always a bunch of excuses trotted out on why Pakistan does not get publicly called out by the US government of the day.

It is not like "ooh..... what about logistics of daal-chawal-chole that needs to reach our troops via pakistan" makes sense for a massive power that has the best logistics systems in the world.

[Gus]

Hmmm.... this is why I have been unable to see the adulation that Shree Trump seems to be getting from lots of folks in BRF. Shree Trump will be surrounded by handpicked personnel from the same pool that always coddled Pakistani military's chonies.

I keep asking that question. Ok, Hilary has this history of being inimical to Indian interests. Everyone gets it. How will Trump be different going forward. All I got was some mumbo jumbo about 'Reagan did not know anything but stumbled into good things' and 'benign neglect' or 'swamp the drain' or something about globalism vs nativism/majoritarian nationalism and modi==trump. Truth is no one knows what Trump will do, but his picks do give us a clue and those clues are not happy ones.

'he is not Hilary' won't cut it anymore.

If the new administration is going to do some tough talk about "we claim some countries as harboring jihadis and therefore will temporarily stop immigration from there" and not even mention the jihad factory Pakistan

how is it different from "ombaba won't even call islamic terrorism by its name "

[Kashi]

I keep asking that question. Ok, Hilary has this history of being inimical to Indian interests. Everyone gets it. How will Trump be different going forward.

Truth is no one knows what Trump will do, but his picks do give us a clue and those clues are not happy ones.

You answered you own question. No one absolutely knows what Trump will do, whether the clues are "not happy" or "great" (depending on whom you ask), the proof of the pudding will lie in eating.

With Hilary and her past transgression against our interests (that Amber G. conveniently left out while extolling her "contributions" to Indian interests), it was given that a President Hilary-flavoured pudding was unlikely to have been different from what we have have had the misfortune of tasting in all her previous avatars.

One can't keep downing goop just because one does not know what that thing in the other plate tastes like.

[Yagnasri]

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economic ... s-victory/

Conclusion is interesting. Canada may have their own Trump.

[panduranghari]

Washington Examiner

Henry Kissinger: Trump ;has absolutely no baggage.; https://t.co/4tmAGWV1Ok— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 20, 2016

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who has helped direct American foreign policy for several decades, said he thinks President-elect Trump is the "most unique" he has ever seen in terms of his lack of "baggage" holding him down.

"He has absolutely no baggage," Kissinger told CNN on Sunday. "He has no obligation to any particular group because he has become president on the basis of his own strategy."

[UlanBatori]

Polis using water cannon on Peaceful Protestors in 28Deg F weather!! Just because they had lit a few fires using polis cars to warm themselves!

I agree: this is brutal. Why not use 94GHz beams instead? They are so warm!

[pankajs]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... randing-d/
Jon Stewart slams liberal ‘hypocrisy’ for branding Trump voters racist

“Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They’re afraid of their insurance premiums,” he continued. “In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. Don’t look as Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also real in our country.”

Stewart is right.

[Rudradev]

Here is a transcript of the NPR interview with Richard Bertrand Spencer, regarded as the ideological founder of the Alt-Right movement in America.

What I gather from the elevation of Steve Bannon to a Karl-Rove-type position in the Trump WHOTUS is this: when, not if, Trump fails to deliver on his campaign promises to the white working class, the machinery is being put in place for a level of scapegoating that the US hasn't experienced since the 1940s.

Of course, SDRE Hindus may console ourselves that scapegoating wouldn't affect us. Many other scapegoats ahead of us in line, to be sure. Some will even deserve what they get, because of the Pakistaniyat they ooze.

Meanwhile, I wonder how they would ascertain that any of us isn't Muslim. Lungi-check, like the Paki army in Bangladesh in 1971? Hey, but if civil liberties have come to such a pass, it could only mean things are already unimaginably bad.

Or maybe they will look at our drivers' licenses, passports, green cards, and have the perspicacity to differentiate between a Hindu name and a Muslim name. Maybe they will even care enough to learn the differences. Possibly.

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476139 ... nistration

Stephen Bannon, Donald Trump's incoming White House chief strategist, used to run the website Breitbart, which he called "the platform for the alt-right." The alt-right has been associated with racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny. Its adherents believe they have a voice in the new administration. NPR's Kelly McEvers talks to Richard Spencer, a white nationalist who coined the term "alt-right."

KELLY MCEVERS, HOST:

The new chief strategist for President-elect Donald Trump once said a website he used to run, Breitbart News, is a platform for the so-called alt-right. We're about to hear more about that movement from the man who says he came up with the term alt-right. His name is Richard Spencer, and in 2008, he began arguing there should be an alternative to George W. Bush-era Republicans and conservatives.

Richard Spencer now runs a small think tank that pushes alt-right ideas. To be clear, the alt-right movement is also a white nationalist movement that's associated with racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism. What the alt-right wants, Spencer says, is an awakening of identity politics, meaning white identity politics.

The alt-right used to exist mostly on the Internet, but with the rise of Donald Trump and his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, the movement is starting to hold conferences where hundreds of people attend. Spencer and others in the alt-right movement were suspended from Twitter this week. But now that Trump has been elected, Spencer says he believes the alt-right will continue to grow.

RICHARD SPENCER: This is the first time we've really entered the mainstream, and we're not going away. I mean this is just the beginning. And I'm very excited.

MCEVERS: Just a warning here. There are words and phrases and ideas in the next seven minutes that many people will find offensive, even hateful. But because this group has influence, we think you should hear what the alt-right is and what it wants from a Trump administration. So I ask Spencer that, and he said his end goal is a white ethno state sometime in the future.

SPENCER: What I would ultimately want is this ideal of a safe space effectively for Europeans. This is a big empire that would accept all Europeans. It would be a place for Germans. It would be a place for Slavs. It would be a place for Celts. It would be a place for white Americans and so on.

For something like that to happen and really for Europeans to survive and thrive in this very difficult century that we're going to be experiencing, we have to have a sense of consciousness. We're going to have to have that sense of identity.

MCEVERS: Going forward, should only white European people be considered U.S. citizens?

SPENCER: Well, no, I mean the citizenship of the United States - like, this is not something that can be changed right away. So I mean I think we need to differentiate identity and citizenship.

MCEVERS: So in your idea, like, there's a United States of America where different people still have citizenship but they're living in separate enclaves; they're living in places where they are kept separate from one another.

SPENCER: What I'm saying is that Europeans defined America. They defined what it is. Of course there are people who are non-European who are here, who are citizens and so on. What I would...

MCEVERS: Who many would argue also defined America.

SPENCER: Sure, and they did to a certain degree. But European people were the indispensable central people that defined this nation socially and politically and culturally and demographically obviously.

I care about us more. That's all I'm saying. But I respect identitarians of other races. And I actually can see eye to eye with them in a way that your average conservative can't.

MCEVERS: But you also believe that people of different races inherently do not get along. Isn't that right?

SPENCER: I think world history believes that (laughter). I mean I don't - it's not just my opinion. I don't see very many counterexamples.

MCEVERS: So you ride the subway in New York City. And you're sitting in a subway car, and you're looking at people from all over everywhere. And nobody's punching each other. Nobody's stabbing anyone. Everyone's going about their life, going to work, you know? You don't see that as, like, a way where people are getting along?

SPENCER: Do we really like each other? Do we really love each other? Do we really have a sense of community in that subway car? What I see are a lot of...

MCEVERS: Or a cul-de-sac or in kindergarten.

SPENCER: Whenever many different races are in the same school, what will happen is that there'll be a natural segregation at lunchtime, at PE, at - in terms of after-school play.

MCEVERS: Richard Spencer's views are obviously not easy to hear, but we do think they're important to hear because of the link between the alt-right and Donald Trump's team. I asked Richard Spencer what policies he's pushing for - natural conservation, he said, a foreign policy that's friendlier to Russia and this.

SPENCER: Immigration is the most obvious one. And I think we need to get beyond thinking about immigration just in terms of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is not nearly as damaging as legal immigration. Legal immigration - they're here to stay. Their children are here and so on.

And I think a really reasonable and I think palatable policy proposal would be for Donald Trump to say, look; we've had immigration in the past. It's brought some fragmentation. It's brought division. But we need to become a people again. And for us to do that, we're going to need to take a break from mass immigration. And we're going to need to preference people who are going to fit in, who are more like us. That is European immigration.

MCEVERS: You know, how likely do you think it is that some of these policies that you want to see happen will happen?

SPENCER: What I want is influence. And sometimes influence can be invisible. If we can get these ideas out there, if people can see the compelling and powerful nature of them, I think we really can change policy.

MCEVERS: I just want to go down a list of things. And you tell me if they are OK or not OK.

SPENCER: OK.

MCEVERS: Graffiti that says make America white again.

SPENCER: I don't - look; graffiti is illegal, but...

MCEVERS: The slogan make America white again.

SPENCER: I don't have a huge problem with that I mean that people...

MCEVERS: OK.

SPENCER: ...Are just expressing their opinion.

MCEVERS: Swastikas.

SPENCER: A swastika is an ancient symbol. I don't - like, you know, if you're asking me, do I have a problem with people expressing themselves and maybe, you know...

MCEVERS: With a swastika.

SPENCER: People want to express themselves. They can do whatever they want.

MCEVERS: So that's an OK - wearing white robes or hoods like the KKK.

SPENCER: Look. I'm - you're not going to get me to condemn any of this because you haven't said anything that is really fundamentally illegal or immoral. I might not agree with some people. I might not like this. I might like that, not like that. But the fact is these are people expressing themselves. I'm not going to condemn any of that.

MCEVERS: Do you agree with those expressions?

SPENCER: I agree with people who want to get in touch with their identity as a European. That can take a number of different forms. I don't support any kind of physical threats or anything like that. I think that does cross the line.

But in terms of people coming to terms with who they are, I don't oppose it. And I actually would respect - deeply respect the right of non-white people to try to understand themselves and to express themselves as they see fit.

MCEVERS: What about Republicans in particular?

SPENCER: Not a fan.

MCEVERS: Right.

SPENCER: Well, I like their voters. Like, the voters are great. I - the fact that they just chose Donald Trump - that is great. I love them. In terms of Republican operatives, in terms of the conservative movement - not a fan.

MCEVERS: I guess I'm thinking of just Republicans in general - like, people maybe who did - who also voted for Donald Trump but who will say, you know, that your views are racist and are extreme and don't have a place in this country. How do you deal with them?

SPENCER: If I had told you in 1985 that we should have gay marriage in this country, you probably would have laughed at me. And I think most people would have. Or at least - at the very least, you would have been a bit confused, and you would have told me, oh that's ridiculous. The fact is, opinions do change. People's consciousness does change. Paradigms are meant to be broken. That's what the alt-right is doing.

MCEVERS: That was Richard Spencer, the leader of the so-called alt-right, a white nationalist movement that supported Donald Trump. Spencer says he is not in contact with the Trump transition team. We asked the Trump team to comment about links between Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and the alt-right, but we did not hear back.

[ramana]

Sounds like a kook.
He will get thrown out in 2018 if needed.

In 1980 many nuts claimed Reagan got elected because of them and found out not so.

[Lalmohan]

blacks in south Africa distrust local Indians, because they went along with the boers and anglos in maintaining the apartheid set up...

meanwhile, I see that we have started drawing up lists of journalists we don't like and putting them on notice boards
and ofcourse any one writing against trump must be a dangerous left wing radical out to destroy the country/world/universe...

some uk newspapers recently labelled 3 judges as 'enemies of the people' for reminding the government that it has to follow the will of the people through the established mechanisms of governance...

soon people will soon start having to identify themselves as belonging to group a or group b

some people have suggested that they will start wearing yellow arm bands... maybe later they might add a star of david to it...

[ramana]

Yashca Mounk is tweeting about death of liberal democracy since the last six months.

Lets look at that before hitting our own people.

[Sanju]

When a pendulum swings too far to one side it usually swings to the other end before settling somewhere in the middle.

[Rudradev]

When a pendulum swings too far to one side it usually swings to the other end before settling somewhere in the middle.

Correct onlee.

My concern is, how can SDRE Hindus in the US avoid being decapitated by this giant pendulum as it's swinging back and forth with great force?

[Yayavar]

^^good question. Steve Bannon quote above on 'asians in SV' and the alt-right 'coiner' are scary..

I wrote early that it does not matter what DT believes in. The nasties have come out in force thinking they have support and that could be difficult for SDREs.

Trump has caused the nasties to come out and blatantly target non-white immigrants and be anti-PC as they call it (but mostly misogynist). Indians here will get some of the brunt - see the positive news thread for the latest example. Trump may himself not be that but his movement has encouraged others. So domestically for non-whiltes living in USA he very likely is not good news. He might or might not be good news in foreign policy. That is unknown. Hillary is known bad news in foreign policy and wrt India. India has to and will survive either of them just as it survived Clinton/Bush and Obama eras.

[Sanju]

Correct onlee.

My concern is, how can SDRE Hindus in the US avoid being decapitated by this giant pendulum as it's swinging back and forth with great force?

Rudradevji,

There is no knowing what the future holds. Having said that (and done my bit of cya), I find it hard to believe that folks from 'Alt-Rt' or whatever they call themselves will have a significant influence. I would lay my trust in the inherent checks and balances in the US system. SDREs survived the 60s, 70s & 80s.

[ramana]

Looks like there is buyers remorse after DT elected to power.

On both these threads there seem to be unrequited nostalgia for Democrats.
In case its forgotten its Hillary mem with her Huma Abedin coterie.

[Hitesh]

This is how I feel about those who voted for Trump.

[Gus]

.SDREs survived the 60s, 70s & 80s.

When they were is really really small numbers. Typical sdre now won't even know how to organize and fight back using the checks and balances thing you mentioned.

Legislators especially Republicans are quite effective in using law to control people and still avoiding legal trouble on constituional rights They managed defacto non abortion by legislating the heck out of clinics and docs.

[Dipanker]

I have been skeptical about the theory of Huma Abedin being anti Indian, so far I have not found any evidence suggesting that other than the insinuations of forumers. My hunch is that being of Indian ancestry she probably has at least some soft corner for India.
In one of article related to her I read that she arranged a phone call from MMS to Hillary 6 am DC time and made sure that Hillary was woken up that early in the morning to take that call!

Buyer's remorse is only for those who supported Trump, those who did not will hunker down for 4 years (hopefully) and wait these deplorables out.

[Sanju]

<snip> Typical sdre now won't even know how to organize and fight back using the checks and balances thing you mentioned.

<snip>

Is that your assumption or a fact?

[GShankar]

So much dhoti shiver after the fact (election of DT). If SDRE injuns survived this long by whatever means, by default, they'll continue to do so.

The question should be, is there a better way? Or can we take a different direction.

IMO, at this point India has either an equal or better chance than pakis to build better relationships with US as a country and white / americans as people. We should start thinking about how to "communicate"/"express" that all brown skinned folks are NOT pakis than saying Aiyoo and Aiyakho.

[Manish_Sharma]

I have been skeptical about the theory of Huma Abedin being anti Indian, ....... My hunch is that being of Indian ancestry she probably has at least some soft corner for India.

musharraf and hamid gul, jinnah, rahil and nawaz sharif and EVERY SINGLE PAKISTANI HAS BHARATIYA ANCESTRY....

It seems rona dhona for hitlary defeat won't die down any sooner.
boooohoooo hoooo sob sob poor hitlary and huma lost....

Lets see how long before this catharsis of hillary supporters continue before the knowledgeable posters write down how to deal with trump.

[Kashi]

I have been skeptical about the theory of Huma Abedin being anti Indian. My hunch is that being of Indian ancestry she probably has at least some soft corner for India.

Dinesh D'souza, Bobby Jindal, Preet Bharara, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun...

Plenty of soft corners there won't you say?

[Gus]

<snip> Typical sdre now won't even know how to organize and fight back using the checks and balances thing you mentioned.

<snip>

Is that your assumption or a fact?

A few got involved in textbook issue in CA. What else have we fought and won? Most are not politically aware beyond the headlines or organized beyond their weekend birthday parties and work lunches. That much is a fact.

[Dipanker]

Not sure if this has already been posted.

Prophetic writing by Richard Rorty’s in his book “Achieving Our Country,” published in 1998.

[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. …

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past 40 years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. … All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

[Dipanker]

I have been skeptical about the theory of Huma Abedin being anti Indian. My hunch is that being of Indian ancestry she probably has at least some soft corner for India.

Dinesh D'souza, Bobby Jindal, Preet Bharara, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun...

Plenty of soft corners there won't you say?

Apparently not. Feel free to disagree with my opinion my all means!

[Kashi]

Apparently not. Feel free to disagree with my opinion my all means!

This is not about agreeing or disagreeing with your opinions. I only pointed out (with examples) that having an Indian ancestry by no means guarantees "at least some soft corner for India".

[Dipanker]

Apparently not. Feel free to disagree with my opinion my all means!

This is not about agreeing or disagreeing with your opinions. I only pointed out (with examples) that having an Indian ancestry by no means guarantees "at least some soft corner for India".

True, but it also does not preclude the chances of having a soft corner for India. Therefore any such assumption can be entirely wrong, but it could be right too.

[Austin]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38059623

The six executive actions Trump would take on day one are:

issuing notice of withdrawing from TPP
cancelling restrictions on US energy production
cutting regulations on businesses
ordering a plan to combat cyber-attacks
investigating visa abuses that undercut American workers
imposing a five-year ban on people leaving government to become lobbyists

The president-elect has spent the last week starting to put together his new team

[Yagnasri]

Swarajya has more detailed list.

http://swarajyamag.com/insta/in-a-video ... -in-office