Few excerpts from the interview, go read the full interview, it's interesting.

I've always sort of been baffled at the caricature of Bannon as some evil white supremacist. He ran Breitbart, a populist, provocative right-wing site, and of course the legitimate political sect that wants to lessen immigration will attract some unsavory characters. Any time Bannon gets interviewed, the main issue for him is economic nationalism.

As far as his comments on crushing the Democrats with economic nationalism, I think that would work if Trump was a disciplined president who got some things done. I think any message for Democrats in 2020 will be a winning one.

Thoughts, PaRD?

This post was edited by IceMage on Aug 17 2017 03:00am

the obsession with china is real

He's right in the way that if Trump's presidency manages to get a healthy economy going, there's not much the Dems can do. Of course that hinges on the Republican Party also siding with Trump, which has not happened much yet. He definitely seems like a smart man, otherwise he would not be in the position he's in. And on the crushing of ethno-nationalists, Trump's dismissal of them was weak at best.

I've read though that estimates of South Korean casualties before NK supply lines and artillery sites are destroyed are around max 200k. When I was in Seoul a few weeks ago you had bunkers everywhere (mostly near metro stations) to hide, and there are even widespread cabinets with flashlights/gasmasks. South Korea is relatively well prepared for any escalation. I do agree that the military option is not really an option. Destroying NK infrastructure would just make it harder to rebuild, and the entire power balance in NK hinges on very few people. Ideally you'd have just them taken out of the equation and that would be it. For those interested in who are influencing Kim behind the curtains, read Dear Leader by Jang Jin-Sung. In South Korea we also spoke with some North Korean refugees, and they agreed that the military option would be bad. They also clarified that at least in the border regions and in Pyongyang, people are very much aware of Western culture and wealth. They watch bootleg copies of Desperate Housewives, The Walking Dead, etc. The biggest problem is that people can't trust eachother to organize protest (people are rewarded for snitching, even on family, from a very young age).

And diplomatically, Kim dynasty isn't going to give up power. The higherups in the Worker's Party aren't going to give up their cushy lives to become streetsweeps or homeless in South Korea after reunification. It's complicated.

- Are Usa too weak and affraid of losing money by taxing chinese imports ?
- Is Trump just interested in doing diversions on Kim Jong show or Charlottes ?

Thats the real questions



This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Aug 17 2017 07:05am

It's fair though. China is probably the only real economic threat to the USA. Most wars came down to money rather than ideology. Middle east conflicts were typically about oil, many of our lesser known South American conflicts were about natural resources. We overthrew the Guatemalan government because of the United Fruit Company (now known as Chiquita, like the lady with the bananas). The civil war was about slavery, but it was more about the financial impact of it than the moral impact of it. So if you want to understand conflict, you need to understand money.

China's younger population being vastly smaller than its older population I think is enough on its own to spell disaster for their economy. As more of their citizens become unemployable due to age, there will be a huge labor gap which will result in massive impacts on their economy.

I think this is what is most scary. When China's economic bubble inevitably pops, which I think will happen for the EXACT reason you stated, a graying of their age gap drastically larger than the USA's, you'll see their economic growth come to a halt and when their back is against the wall they may have little choice than war. When economic powerhouses falter, war is typically what gets their economic status back on track.

I just wish Democrats would move further to the left. Currently they use identity Politics as sort of a left surrogate for their other views. It's like they think if they include one really far left idea than everything else will get a pass.

Everything else Bandon said seems to be reasonable except for the alt-right being a fringe movement.

Lol it's just so hypocritical. The left whined for 8 years that Obama couldn't do anything because the right was so far right that they wouldn't pass any of Obama's agenda items. The left said, we're willing to compromise and be bipartisan, reach across the aisle, etc. Then now when Trump is in power, what do you do? The exact same thing the republicans did for 8 years. Showing absolutely no good faith, just proving the republicans correct in their actions.

I can't stand when people go "wahhhh congress can't agree on anything or get anything done!" then they go straight party lines on everything not willing to come to a bi-partisan agreement on shit. Congress is doing the exact same thing you're doing, being a little baby not willing to meet in the middle at all on anything.

What a waste.

Most people in Congress/Senate are only interested in self preservation.