KING: Trump’s Chief Strategist, Stephen Bannon, said he’d prefer it if only property owners could vote

[smilesammich 10,727]

this is the reason why i refuse trump, i read these wink-winks loud and clear. not even in office yet..more to come. wait and see!

Now, though, a former Bannon colleague, Julia Jones, who worked alongside him as a partner on a Ronald Reagan film project, revealed to The New York Times that he not only spoke on issues of “genetic superiority,” but that he “once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.”

When Jones offered the rebuttal that such a plan “would exclude a lot of African-Americans,” Bannon allegedly quipped back in return that “maybe that’s not such a bad thing.”

Do I really need to explain how deeply racist and problematic these statements from Bannon are? Do you need me to spell out for you how disturbing it is for the chief strategist for the incoming President of the United States to openly say it wouldn’t be “such a bad thing” if most African-Americans were disqualified from voting because they didn’t own land? Do you need me to explain how outrageously racist it was for Bannon, who was a fully grown 51-year-old man when he made these statements to Julia Jones, to basically say he’d like to go back to the way voting was in the 1800s — which was the last time property ownership was a requirement for voting?

Does it even matter anymore?

Or have we crossed a threshold where ethics, integrity, and truthfulness, alongside issues like racism and bigotry, are no longer disqualifiers to work in the White House? Because it certainly seems that way.

These latest statements from Bannon to emerge would’ve disqualified anyone from working in any recent presidential administration. They are disgusting and get to the heart of who Stephen Bannon appears to see and values as human beings and full citizens of this nation. When a man says he’d prefer to see only landowners vote, which has not been the law in this country for nearly 200 years, the phrase “Make America Great Again” all of a sudden makes a lot more sense.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-bannon-prefer-property-owners-vote-article-1.2889868

[Dakine10 5,452]

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

So one woman makes a comment about a guy, and we are supposed to keep him from office? Reminds me of the woman (maybe women?) who accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Then recanted. Three times.

Show me where Bannon said it publicly, and it becomes more than anectodal.

[Dakine10 5,452]

So one woman makes a comment about a guy, and we are supposed to keep him from office? Reminds me of the woman (maybe women?) who accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Then recanted. Three times.

Show me where Bannon said it publicly, and it becomes more than anectodal.

We had people on this site believing Hillary Clinton was into human sacrifice. It's interesting how no one needs proof when it's something they want to hear.

Given this guys history, stuff like this will no doubt be the tip of the iceberg. When Glenn Beck says a guy is so far to the right it scares him, that's actually something.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Only time will tell.

But I remember several here who say anecdotal evidence or experience means next to nothing. I guess it depends on which foor it's being used on.

Edited November 29, 2016 by LFEHFN

[Dakine10 5,452]

Only time will tell.

But I remember several here who say anecdotal evidence or experience means next to nothing. I guess it depends on which foor it's being used on.

We're not trying and convicting him, were discussing. Anecdotal evidence is exactly that. When there is a preponderance of it, then the warning signs are there.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

'Twould be awesome if it worked both ways, but it doesn't on CEHST. I remember being mocked (not by you) because I knew someone who illegally registered to vote. "He KNOWS someone, LOL", or something to that effect.

But "warning signs" only matter to those who see the negative, I guess. All is fair in love and war.

We're not trying and convicting him, were discussing. Anecdotal evidence is exactly that. When there is a preponderance of it, then the warning signs are there.

[Dakine10 5,452]

But "warning signs" only matter to those who see the negative, I guess. All is fair in love and war.

Exactly. Personally, I see a negative in restricting voting rights to property owners. I see a negative in people believing and promoting ideas like "genetic superiority". I suppose if someone doesn't see those as negatives, then you are correct, there would be no warning signs.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I agree with you. Unfortunately for the topic at hand, we have one woman's word (hearsay, at that that) that Bannon believes that way. Not really something to hang your hat on, is it?

And whether you like it or not, or choose to admit it, genetic superiority exists. Doesn't mean someone is a better person, but good genes can give a person an edge, without a doubt.

Exactly. Personally, I see a negative in restricting voting rights to property owners. I see a negative in people believing and promoting ideas like "genetic superiority". I suppose if someone doesn't see those as negatives, then you are correct, there would be no warning signs.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I agree with you. Unfortunately for the topic at hand, we have one woman's word (hearsay, at that that) that Bannon believes that way. Not really something to hang your hat on, is it?

And whether you like it or not, or choose to admit it, genetic superiority exists. Doesn't mean someone is a better person, but good genes can give a person an edge, without a doubt.

As I said, I agree this topic is one persons word, but it's not an isolated allegation.

The genetic superiority that Bannon is talking about is not individuals having superior genes, rather a "race" having superior genes. Let's not pretend that's the same thing.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

You SAY you agree that it's one person's word, yet you think he said a "race has superior genes". You can't have it both ways. Let's hear it from his own mouth before we judge, eh? I hope this person is wrong, and Bannon is not that sort of character. As I said, only time will tell.

Pray tell, what are you doing up so late? Working the late shift again?

As I said, I agree this topic is one persons word, but it's not an isolated allegation.

The genetic superiority that Bannon is talking about is not individuals having superior genes, rather a "race" having superior genes. Let's not pretend that's the same thing.

[Dakine10 5,452]

You SAY you agree that it's one person's word, yet you think he said a "race has superior genes".

This is not the first person who has made that claim.

Pray tell, what are you doing up so late? Working the late shift again?

Don't know where you live. It's 10:30 here. My kids aren't even in bed yet.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

First I've heard. Still doesn't make it accurate. I remember many claiming Obama wasn't a USC...

This is not the first person who has made that claim.

[Dakine10 5,452]

First I've heard. Still doesn't make it accurate. I remember many claiming Obama wasn't a USC...

Indeed. It sounds like you may not be very familiar with this guy.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Guilty as charged. Then again, I knew nothing about Obama until he ran for president.

Indeed. It sounds like you may not be very familiar with this guy.