7

Multiple media sources are reporting that president-elect Trump has appointed a person with white nationalist and anti-semitic views as his chief strategist. Is it true that the appointee has expressed such views?

Steve Bannon, the Breitbart News Network executive chairman known for having white nationalist views ― and who has himself been accused of anti-Semitism ― was named chief strategist and senior counselor to President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5828e1d4e4b0c4b63b0d33d7

The ADL’s chief executive, Jonathan Greenblatt, welcome Priebus’ appointment but said of Bannon’s: “It is a sad day when a man who presided over the premier website of the ‘alt-right’ – a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists – is slated to be a senior staff member in the ‘people’s house’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/stephen-bannon-reince-priebus-donald-trump-white-house-staff

Steve Bannon, the Breitbart boss and Trump campaign CEO, runs a website that filters so-called “alt-right”, white nationalist views into the mainstream. He has been accused of racism and anti-Semitism. And now, as the newly appointed chief strategist and senior counselor to the President-elect, his opinions will be whispered into the ear of the leader of the free world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/steve-bannon-donald-trump-breitbart-alt-right-president-elect-a7415556.html

closed as primarily opinion-based by Sklivvz Nov 14 '16 at 10:09

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    I've tried to fix this question, but what it's really asking is to pass a subjective judgement on Steve Bannon believes. Short of him calling himself a racist, I don't think this can be conclusively answered. Can you change it so it's some specific quote, so we can look at concrete facts? – Sklivvz Nov 14 '16 at 10:12
  • 2
    @Sklivvz You changed the question to ask about what he has expressed, not what he believes. Doesn't that make it concrete/answerable? Or is it still too vague e.g. because it's impossible to identify any view or statement as anti-semitic or racist? I would have though it is possible (to identify some views or statements as anti-semitic or racist), in the same way that one might answer "yes" to the question of whether en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornographic_magazines publish pornography. – ChrisW Nov 14 '16 at 11:44
  • 1
    @ChrisW it doesn't make it specific or clear enough. Compare "has he ever said anything racist?" with "has he said X?". The former assumes guilt until proven innocent, in my view. – Sklivvz Nov 14 '16 at 11:46
  • 2
    @ChrisW - not really important in the big scheme of things, but as a Skeptic, I would advise strongly against relying on "ex spouse said in divorce court" as reliable evidence. There is a extremely strong temptation to lie to achieve leverage in the proceedings, and people routinely make up stuff in such circumstances (multiple and/or unbiased witnesses, or a lie detector test, might possibly make such evidence a bit more worthy of consideration, of course). – user5341 Nov 14 '16 at 17:28
  • 1
    @ChrisW - ugh. That kind of "did a random person with beef against another person accuse the second person of something bad" seems like a really really really bad idea as far as what should be in the site scope. If we allow ALL of them (that are notable) and this turns into "which side's political zealots post more baseless accusations against the other" - and that's assuming this doesn't degenerate into Gawker and also attract gossipy non-political accusations. If we don't, the rules of which ones are allowed will likely be too subjective. – user5341 Nov 14 '16 at 17:50

Browse other questions tagged .