Who do you want to win?

[clubgop]

In my opinion, Flynn is a much better choice than Bannon. Flynn has been in the military and has at least some idea of how the government works. While Bannon makes references about being "darkness is good"

In his first interview outside of the conservative website Breitbart News since the election, Steve Bannon said that he thinks "darkness is good."

"Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they (liberals) get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing,"

http://fortune.com/2016/11/20/steve-ban ... -darkness/

There is that bubble again. Just buying into that media narrative where darkness=evil and everything in response to it is justified and make excuses for it. Keep getting it wrong, keep being blind.

[Ex-California]

Dark bro

[adwinistrator]

In my opinion, Flynn is a much better choice than Bannon. Flynn has been in the military and has at least some idea of how the government works. While Bannon makes references about being "darkness is good"

In his first interview outside of the conservative website Breitbart News since the election, Steve Bannon said that he thinks "darkness is good."

"Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they (liberals) get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing,"

http://fortune.com/2016/11/20/steve-ban ... -darkness/

Sounds like he's been using his own supply...

President Trump's oval office is looking to create a process for inter-departmental coordination, after Bannon and Miller jumped the gun on the executive order "PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES". Had all affected departments been involved in the drafting, and had their legal departments review, they could have avoided losing in the courts and having their in-fighting detailed in the headlines.

This report from the Washington Post has been reworded after Sean Spicer denied certain details, and basically said "there was no disagreement, nobody argued, we're all getting along perfectly fine!"

Washington Post - Josh Rogin - Inside the White House-Cabinet battle over Trump’s immigration order (Updated 2/5/17 8:55 AM

Over the weekend of Jan. 28-29, as airport protests raged over President Trump’s executive order on immigration, the man charged with implementing the order, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly, had a plan. He would issue a waiver for lawful permanent residents, a.k.a. green-card holders, from the seven majority-Muslim countries whose citizens had been banned from entering the United States.

White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon wanted to stop Kelly in his tracks and told him not to issue the order. Kelly, according to two administration officials familiar with the confrontation, refused to comply. That was the beginning of a weekend of negotiations among senior Trump administration staffers that led, on Sunday, Jan. 29, to a White House decision to change the process for the issuance of executive orders.

The disagreement between Bannon and Kelly pitted a political operator against a military disciplinarian. Two administration officials gave the following account of their exchange: Respectfully but firmly, the retired general told Bannon that despite his high position in the White House and close relationship with President Trump, the former Breitbart chief was not in Kelly’s chain of command. If the president wanted Kelly to back off from issuing the waiver, Kelly would have to hear it from the president directly, he told Bannon. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Kelly and Bannon spoke on Jan. 27 and 29, but denied they had a confrontation over the green card waiver. In an email sent late Saturday, Bannon also denied a confrontation with Kelly and said he had not told him to withhold the waiver.

Trump didn’t call Kelly to tell him to hold off. Kelly issued the waiver late Saturday night, although it wasn’t officially announced until the following day.

Bannon and Miller certainly wanted to hit the ground running, but didn't seem to have the process in place to make sure there weren't errors in the execution. Flynn, Mattis, and Kelly seem to not be interested in any wild west shit: measure twice cut once.

President Trump clearly did not like the idea of having to fight over oversights in this executive order, when with a bit of review by his cabinet's offices and their legal teams, this could have been done with a lot less complication.

Washington Post - Philip Rucker and Ashley Parker - ‘We’ll do better’: Trump’s White House tries to gain a sense of order amid missteps (2/4/17 5:36 PM)

At a senior staff meeting last Monday, according to one adviser in attendance, the president delivered an unmistakable decree: “Reince [Priebus] is in charge. He’s the chief of staff. Everything has to go through him.”

That directive included setting clearer boundaries among the various departments and assertively tamping down reports of staff infighting, which aides said personally angered the president.

Over the rest of the week, Priebus sought to assert control over the policy process and interagency communications, slowed the assembly line of executive orders to avoid errors and tried to organize the daily rhythms in the White House.

“This is the chief of staff saying, ‘Look, we have a very qualified team here, and we want to make sure that everyone has time and opportunity to make comments on these policies,’ ” said Katie Walsh, a deputy chief of staff.

The big thinker remains chief White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who has used chaos as a tool for implementing transformative policy but who aides said is now trying to adapt to working within Priebus’s structure.

“Some of us are a little more aggressive than others, and others have a more calming influence, and it’s what makes a perfect partnership,” Bannon said. “There’s no daylight between us, and there’s really no daylight with the president.”

One senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid, said the issue isn’t so much about areas of responsibility but about whether people can stay within them.

[adwinistrator]

In my opinion, Flynn is a much better choice than Bannon. Flynn has been in the military and has at least some idea of how the government works. While Bannon makes references about being "darkness is good"

In his first interview outside of the conservative website Breitbart News since the election, Steve Bannon said that he thinks "darkness is good."

"Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they (liberals) get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing,"

http://fortune.com/2016/11/20/steve-ban ... -darkness/

There is that bubble again. Just buying into that media narrative where darkness=evil and everything in response to it is justified and make excuses for it. Keep getting it wrong, keep being blind.

Dude... I mean, I can see coming up with a solid defense for Darth Vader, I mean he was just trying to put down the rebel scum. What's wrong with a little realpolitik.

Bannon used satan as an example, and you come back with "pffft, he's not talking about 'evil', you're so blind"...

SATAN???

[Speaker to Animals]

So being a noble Jedi warrior means beating women in the face with metal flagpoles? LOL. I don't remember the part in the film where yoda says "smash that bitch in the face with a metal poll, you must".

I am not sure if you guys realize this, but you ARE on the side of darkness..

[clubgop]

In my opinion, Flynn is a much better choice than Bannon. Flynn has been in the military and has at least some idea of how the government works. While Bannon makes references about being "darkness is good"



http://fortune.com/2016/11/20/steve-ban ... -darkness/

There is that bubble again. Just buying into that media narrative where darkness=evil and everything in response to it is justified and make excuses for it. Keep getting it wrong, keep being blind.

Dude... I mean, I can see coming up with a solid defense for Darth Vader, I mean he was just trying to put down the rebel scum. What's wrong with a little realpolitik.

Bannon used satan as an example, and you come back with "pffft, he's not talking about 'evil', you're so blind"...

SATAN???

Read the quote dumbass. "Only helpful when you get it wrong." When they call you Satan and you are not Satan embrace the label and make them believe you are Satan. Darkness is not evil it is the abscence of light. You can't see it, so you get it wrong. Once again you take us literally but not seriously.

[adwinistrator]

There is that bubble again. Just buying into that media narrative where darkness=evil and everything in response to it is justified and make excuses for it. Keep getting it wrong, keep being blind.

Dude... I mean, I can see coming up with a solid defense for Darth Vader, I mean he was just trying to put down the rebel scum. What's wrong with a little realpolitik.

Bannon used satan as an example, and you come back with "pffft, he's not talking about 'evil', you're so blind"...

SATAN???

Read the quote dumbass. "Only helpful when you get it wrong." When they call you Satan and you are not Satan embrace the label and make them believe you are Satan. Darkness is not evil it is the abscence of light. You can't see it, so you get it wrong. Once again you take us literally but not seriously.

I don't think I'm the one have trouble reading, since you're changing the words in the quote.

Maybe we can lift the dialogue up a bit instead of posting insults. I'll explain my interpretation of his very short and vague statement, and I would appreciate your explanation of where your interpretation differs.

Darkness is good. Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing.

Let's break it down:

Darkness is good.

Here's where we are in agreement. I would also interpret this as working in the shadows, because your opposition has misjudged your motives and intentions.

Your argument seems to be that this is all he is saying, therefor summarizing his statement as "darkness=evil" is incorrect. If this was the whole quote, I would agree.

But there's more to the quote.

Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power.

He is talking about power now. These two sentences are not about operating in the shadows, or about his opposition misjudging him.

I'm sure there are a lot of ways to interpret this statement on the ways in which Cheney, Vader, and Satan utilized their power, since they are all unique in that regard, but these are the references he made to what power is.

Since he referenced Satan, I think it's safe to assume that he's talking about the use of power that most would describe as "evil".

I would interpret his statement more along the lines of unilateral manifestation of will, the real puppet-master, and the reshaping of the future.

It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing.

Now he is saying that it helps him and his team when his opposition misjudges him and his plans, they are looking in the wrong place, and he can operate in the "darkness".

What does this "help" him do? Use the "power".

To summarize, I will paraphrase this quote:
[Working in the shadows] is good. [The real puppet-masters of destruction]. That's power. It [makes it easier to use that power] when [you can work in the shadows]. [We can work in the shadows] when [they don't understand our goals] and [don't understand how we plan to accomplish them].

His whole statement is about utilizing power, and how his opposition's mistakes makes it even easier to do so.

The power he references is "Dick Cheney, Darth Vader, Satan".

[Dand]

In my opinion, Flynn is a much better choice than Bannon. Flynn has been in the military and has at least some idea of how the government works. While Bannon makes references about being "darkness is good"



http://fortune.com/2016/11/20/steve-ban ... -darkness/

There is that bubble again. Just buying into that media narrative where darkness=evil and everything in response to it is justified and make excuses for it. Keep getting it wrong, keep being blind.

Dude... I mean, I can see coming up with a solid defense for Darth Vader, I mean he was just trying to put down the rebel scum. What's wrong with a little realpolitik.

Bannon used satan as an example, and you come back with "pffft, he's not talking about 'evil', you're so blind"...

SATAN???

You're just reading what you want to read if you think that what you posted was Bannon saying that Vader/Cheney/Satan are all not-evil. He says that "they keep getting it wrong". The globalists, through the media, call Bannon "nazi", "satan", "vader" but he is not those things.

My understanding of that statement is that he's saying something that many have already said here. Badically "the left is so hyperbolic that they shoot themselves in the foot by pretending tgat all others are pure irredeemable evil" . If the media spends 4 years bitching the way they have been and Trump's administration doesn't round up and execute all non-whites then people will see how they're being lied too.

[adwinistrator]

You're just reading what you want to read if you think that what you posted was Bannon saying that Vader/Cheney/Satan are all not-evil. He says that "they keep getting it wrong". The globalists, through the media, call Bannon "nazi", "satan", "vader" but he is not those things.

My understanding of that statement is that he's saying something that many have already said here. Badically "the left is so hyperbolic that they shoot themselves in the foot by pretending tgat all others are pure irredeemable evil" . If the media spends 4 years bitching the way they have been and Trump's administration doesn't round up and execute all non-whites then people will see how they're being lied too.

I'm honestly not even trying to make that statement, but was pointing to why it would be construed that way. Now I'm being told I'm reading too much into this, and I'm wondering how you read all of that out of his statement...

I think he was talking about using power. You seem to think he was only talking about people misjudging him and failing because of it.

Darkness is good. Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing.

My take: [Working in the shadows] is good. [The real puppet-masters of destruction]. That's power. It [makes it easier to use that power] when [you can work in the shadows]. [We can work in the shadows] when [they don't understand our goals] and [don't understand how we plan to accomplish them].

His whole statement is about utilizing power, and how his opposition's mistakes makes it even easier to do so.

[clubgop]

Dude... I mean, I can see coming up with a solid defense for Darth Vader, I mean he was just trying to put down the rebel scum. What's wrong with a little realpolitik.

Bannon used satan as an example, and you come back with "pffft, he's not talking about 'evil', you're so blind"...

SATAN???

Read the quote dumbass. "Only helpful when you get it wrong." When they call you Satan and you are not Satan embrace the label and make them believe you are Satan. Darkness is not evil it is the abscence of light. You can't see it, so you get it wrong. Once again you take us literally but not seriously.

I don't think I'm the one have trouble reading, since you're changing the words in the quote.

Maybe we can lift the dialogue up a bit instead of posting insults. I'll explain my interpretation of his very short and vague statement, and I would appreciate your explanation of where your interpretation differs.

Darkness is good. Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing.

Let's break it down:

Darkness is good.

Here's where we are in agreement. I would also interpret this as working in the shadows, because your opposition has misjudged your motives and intentions.

Your argument seems to be that this is all he is saying, therefor summarizing his statement as "darkness=evil" is incorrect. If this was the whole quote, I would agree.

But there's more to the quote.

Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power.

He is talking about power now. These two sentences are not about operating in the shadows, or about his opposition misjudging him.

I'm sure there are a lot of ways to interpret this statement on the ways in which Cheney, Vader, and Satan utilized their power, since they are all unique in that regard, but these are the references he made to what power is.

Since he referenced Satan, I think it's safe to assume that he's talking about the use of power that most would describe as "evil".

I would interpret his statement more along the lines of unilateral manifestation of will, the real puppet-master, and the reshaping of the future.

It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing.

Now he is saying that it helps him and his team when his opposition misjudges him and his plans, they are looking in the wrong place, and he can operate in the "darkness".

What does this "help" him do? Use the "power".

To summarize, I will paraphrase this quote:
[Working in the shadows] is good. [The real puppet-masters of destruction]. That's power. It [makes it easier to use that power] when they [don't understand what we're doing]. When [they don't understand our goals] and [don't understand how we plan to accomplish them].

His whole statement is about utilizing power, and how his opposition's mistakes makes it even easier to do so.

The power he references is "Dick Cheney, Darth Vader, Satan".

Nope, that interpretation is what is trying to be pushed off as your devised liberal narrative. But no, Dick Cheney, Darth Vader, Satan arent power but thier characteristations as such are powerful. The lefts game of demonization is a power being used against them. While demonizing their opponents they are getting sussed on issues and are doing evil shit in defense of supposed "good." We are out Alinsky your asses "make them live thier values."

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/368084.php
This article has a pretty good handle on the idea. The right is no longer going to be held to the wrong and dishonest interpretations of our values instead we are going to to hold you to yours.