https://twitter.com/SteveBannon/media?lang=en

Scroll down the 'media' timeline.







For dozens and dozens of posts. Poor guy.

Lool

We had like a semi-democratic oligarchy the day before and I guess the day after the election. Regardless of whether we have a fascist government, we have a fascist President and it remains to be seen whether the system can resist. Hillary dissolving congress in 2023 would have been an absurd notion. I don't think the same is true for Trump.

That has nothing to do with fascism. Also, that stuff has gone on forever and all other countries do it too. A friend of mine worked for Boeing in the 90's and he said one time they lost a big deal to Airbus for the Israeli airline. Madeline Albright then took a trip to Israel and they magically changed their minds and Boeing got the deal. When other countries are doing this too I'd rather have my officials doing it as opposed to not doing it.

Interesting, thanks for your reply!

google translate fixed your post for you

axis power languages know you better than you know yourself

[x] - trolling

Interesting, nothing to do with fascism yet you feel insecure enough to point out that others do it too. The business interests of government has nothing to do with fascism...

Trump's more fascistic than Hillary, no argument there.

I actually agree if you're saying that the U.S. had some fascist elements before Trump. Specifically the GOP from 1960 to 2016. War on drugs, mass incarceration, mass disenfranchisement, voter suppression at the state level, and even the battle against gay rights had some elements of fascism to them.

We've had perpetual war since WWII. If there have been brief periods where we weren't actually fighting in Korea, SE Asia, Central America, The Caribbean, The Baltics or The Levant we've had the cold war, the war on drugs and the war on terror to fill in the gaps.

Rule by a close association of the military and giant commercial interests using fear, corruption, and propaganda has been our form of government since Eisenhower told us that's what was happening.

It is a bit fascist and that's both parties.

Yeah definitely both parties. Bill Clinton had his role to play in dismantling welfare and building up the mass incarceration system in the 1990s.

This thread is pointless.

Americans are spectacularly ignorant of political definitions. They make up their own versions of what liberal and conservative mean and abandon centuries of history of political thought, mainly because they are too lazy to learn anything outside of cable tv and the internet. You people are really f***ing arrogant sometimes, this is one of the reasons people don't like you much.

So, yeah, Trump is a fascist if you want to believe that and not otherwise. Knock yourselves out going round in circles.

The American use of liberal predates cable tv or the internet and has it's roots in Euros like Lloyd George.

It pre-dates Lloyd George.

Mrs Thatcher was often described as a 19th century liberal, meaning that she believed in free markets and was anti-welfare and anti-tax, and therefore pro-charity for the alleviation of poverty lol.

Reagan was similar (though Thatcher certainly ended up raising taxes in the '80s and I think Reagan did too).

Neoliberalism is different from the way Americans use the term. It is essentially what some call Free Market ideology. I disagree with the use of the term but it isn't an unreasonable definition, it is borne of an analytical mindset.

When Americans use the term "liberal" they mean "policies traditionally favoured by the Democratic Party". It is f***ing lazy. That annoys me.

You guys make up weird spellings and call trucks "lorries," but I don't hold that against you.

Thatcher was a liberal in the regular Euro sense of being a laissez-faire capitalist. Lloyd George, if wikipedia is correct, was a member of the Liberal Party who went against the party line at the time and was important in the establishment of welfare programs. That is more in line with the way Americans use the term liberal. That era (FDR in the US) I think is where the classical liberal and American liberal definitions split. I think.

Of course both camps share some basic principles which I think go back to John Locke. Perhaps John Locke (and similar people at the time) are more or less where the base of the term comes from, for modern purposes anyway. And the classical liberalism was a slightly later split by Adam Smith.

I read somewhere that the US vs Euro definitions of 'liberal' were actually fundamental - that the Euro definition arose from Locke/Mill etc, while the US definition was adapted from a theological term (compare the modern 'Liberation Theology', though it's not a true cognate). I don't know if that's accurate, but I do know it doesn't really matter, lol.

19th-Century Liberals were free-traders, as opposed to protectionists. Lloyd George's People's Budget of 1909 broke the mould by introducing taxes on the unearned income of the rich to finance the old-age pension and unemployment and sickness benefits.

Churchill, as President of the Board of Trade at that time, set up the first Labour Exchanges to help the unemployed to find work. He also introduced the Trade Boards Act 1909 which set up the first minimum-wage standards. He also supported the People's Budget and, when promoted to Home Secretary in 1910, the National Insurance Act.

Since then, the essential political conflict has been between the psychopathic tendency (who believe you should cut other people's throats to get whatever you want and you should then be allowed to keep all of it) and the non-psychopathic tendency (who think that's a rubbish and unworkable way to carry on).

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/839909670345138176

This racist bastard is scary as ****.

https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/...59481601593345

https://twitter.com/rachelheldevans/...83086699880448