Breaking: Bannon Removed From National Security Council Role in Shakeup

a reply to: Lab4Us

LOL ... as you say "in order."

1. Trump hasn't proven anything. He's lied about a lot.

2. BS fringe theory, Trump has embarrassed us by fumbling relationships with our long-standing allies, by proving himself to be the bumbling egotistical maniac that most Americans and most of the folks in the world can see him to be.

3. Moved the swamp into the White House, has proven he can't move his signature legislation through Congress, insulted the most Conservative group in Congress for no reason, and is in the process of destroying vital protections for the American people.

4. The economy has soared? LOL. Trump took credit for Obama's numbers under the same reports that he damned during the campaign. He crowed over killing the TPP which was already dead. He's taken credit for companies success that he has done NOTHING to change. Spoken like a true sycophant though, I'll give you that.

5. Oh, that's right, Trump acolytes only like polls when they say what you want them to day. Trump has the lowest approval and highest disapproval ratings of any President ever at this point in his term. You keep denying that though.

6. LOL ... most dangerous? More dangerous than General Flynn having top secret clearance while he was working as a Turkish and probably Russian Agent???

Yeah, tell us another one. LOL

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Tempter

For as precise as Gryphon66 demands everyone else be in their posts, he sure likes to throw out non-specific answers himself.

Anyone else notice that?

Nope. He's pretty much spot-on all the time.


so is antedilluvian

Echo echo echo

Thanks for proving my assertion so quickly.

Elitist, THAT's what you remind me of. Sorry I don't find it necessary to spout off for six pages to prove my point. I'm a man of few words usually, and I can deal with that.

Can you?

Can I deal with your posts being nothing more than sniping from the sidelines and talking about other posters and never about content?

/shrug

You want some content? Here's some content:

I thought liberals like yourself were supposed to be happy Bannon is gone. Wouldn't that show a direction in which Trump might be traveling that would be advantageous to your side?

Then why all the posts about how he's destroying the country (in 100 days no less, dramatic much)?

a reply to: Lab4Us

3. Continues to replace swamp

I wouldn't read too much into it.

a reply to: Tempter

Actually I think Bannon being removed from that position is a very good thing. Although he's still advising Trump which is still bad IMO.

But I don't think the reason given, that he was just there to watch Flynn is remotely believable for a second. I think McMaster had enough of the unorganized way national security was being handled as well as the rest of the Government and told Trump, "Look, if I'm gonna be in charge here like you asked me to be, I want this guy gone and him and so on and you need to do that because you appointed them. This is some serious sh*t we're involved in and this isn't the time to screw around."

Trump knowing McMaster was correct gave him what he wanted and is now trying not to look like he caved. It's that simple.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Tempter

For as precise as Gryphon66 demands everyone else be in their posts, he sure likes to throw out non-specific answers himself.

Anyone else notice that?

Nope. He's pretty much spot-on all the time.


so is antedilluvian

Echo echo echo

Thanks for proving my assertion so quickly.

Elitist, THAT's what you remind me of. Sorry I don't find it necessary to spout off for six pages to prove my point. I'm a man of few words usually, and I can deal with that.

Can you?

Can I deal with your posts being nothing more than sniping from the sidelines and talking about other posters and never about content?

/shrug

You want some content? Here's some content:

I thought liberals like yourself were supposed to be happy Bannon is gone. Wouldn't that show a direction in which Trump might be traveling that would be advantageous to your side?

Then why all the posts about how he's destroying the country (in 100 days no less, dramatic much)?

Well done!

Bannon isn't gone he's just further away from public scrutiny.

My only side is a Constitutional America in which there is as little authoritarian BS as possible.

There is one post above about Trump destroying America and one rebuttal to an insipid attempt to chime in. I don't get to spend a lot of time on my actual positions (so I can see why you'd be confused about my leanings) because there's so many right-wing lies that need addressing.

Bannon isn't about 'National security' anyway, he probably has more influence without a title or expectation of what is "Required" at that position

a reply to: Gryphon66

For all of that, I have a personal feeling that Bannons removal from that post and Trumps Damascus moment about Assad are linked. Maybe he has woken up to the fact that Bannon has been dripping poison in his ear all along.

I know, far fetched, but possible.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Gryphon66

For all of that, I have a personal feeling that Bannons removal from that post and Trumps Damascus moment about Assad are linked. Maybe he has woken up to the fact that Bannon has been dripping poison in his ear all along.

I know, far fetched, but possible.

Seems likely to me that Ivanka moving into the White House for her "unpaid position," and Jared now being put in charge of all the heavy domestic policy stuff has a lot to do with it. No sane, serious person would take Bannon seriously....he is shifty, and by all appearances as crooked a chronic drunken hater with lots of money can be.

Ivanka and Jared may be the innermost of Trump's "circle of handlers" --- and still extremely wealthy, but they at least aren't insane. And definitely not stupid. I'm still waiting to see how much they all are in deals with Russia's elite (and/or government), but word is that the investigation will take months.

Do I trust the Kushners? More than I do their dad, at least, to be thoughtful, serious, and attentive to the seriousness of overseeing our country. It was all fun and games until Yemen, and then we added a bunch of stupid, followed by a deadly and heinous gas attack by a maniac who is supported by Putin (who has been busy ordering the executions of people who piss him off, in broad daylight no less!), incessant idiotic "tweets" echoing the latest from Fox news.......and now it's time to fish the thing out of the toilet, the offal and excrement and other liquid-based contaminants notwithstanding.

Go ahead, GOP, you stick your hand in there and fish it out.

What a fiasco.
But in a way, this is almost like the 'wish' I had that on April 1st we would all be relieved to find out is was all a cruel hoax. April Fools.....!! Lol???

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Gryphon66

For all of that, I have a personal feeling that Bannons removal from that post and Trumps Damascus moment about Assad are linked. Maybe he has woken up to the fact that Bannon has been dripping poison in his ear all along.

I know, far fetched, but possible.

Not far fetched at all. Trump, had the capacity 5-10 years ago, to be a moderate.

I think he could still do it if he'd watch something besides Fox News for his intel, and get rid of Bannon, Miller, and their ilk.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I can live with Ivanka and Jared. Both of them seem like smart, level-headed people.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: IAMTAT

I'm not too sure which is more concerning - that fact he was placed on the NSC in the first instance or this - do you know that out of the 8 different articles I've read on this latest Bannon-fiasco, almost all of them say he was removed, making no mention about him stepping down.

IMO, it's kind of a major point when it comes to motivations and intentions. So, did he step down or was he sacked? If he stood down, was it part of the overall strategy of Trump? If sacked, why?

It appears to me that DJT has a lot of faith and confidence in Bannon, so if he was sacked then this is a major blow for his camp, however if he stood down as part of a broader plan then the Flynn checks-and-balances possibility makes sense.

Either way, can we clarify whether he was sacked or whether he stood down of his own free will (as opposed to being given the opportunity to resign inlieu of being sacked)

If you want to give the media with their unnamed sources the benefit of the doubt, then he was sacked. If you want to give those involved the benefit of the doubt, he finished the task that was required and moved on. The addiction to the media narrative requires the former.

There is no reason to doubt the first-hand account save for the machinations of imaginative people.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How did you discover the "first-hand account" again?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I kind of agree, not quite so sure the family having such influence would sit that comfortably with me most of the time and if Hilary was in the WH and her daughter was thought to be advising her then I know some people on ATS would have a lot to say about that! But I suppose these aren't normal times so who knows, maybe this will turn out to be a positive step.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Gryphon66

For all of that, I have a personal feeling that Bannons removal from that post and Trumps Damascus moment about Assad are linked. Maybe he has woken up to the fact that Bannon has been dripping poison in his ear all along.

I know, far fetched, but possible.

Not far fetched at all. Trump, had the capacity 5-10 years ago, to be a moderate.

I think he could still do it if he'd watch something besides Fox News for his intel, and get rid of Bannon, Miller, and their ilk.

I hope so, it can't help to be a good thing if that happens.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How did you discover the "first-hand account" again?

I read it somewhere.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How did you discover the "first-hand account" again?

I read it somewhere.

Yes, but where?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not recall.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not recall.

One wonders if it wasn't reported by the media ... seems most likely.

Thanks, LM.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not recall.

One wonders if it wasn't reported by the media ... seems most likely.

Thanks, LM.

It was a statement from Bannon that was reported by the media, yes. It was first-hand account from a party involved. Thanks, Gryphon.