Who do you want to win?

[ssu]

Except the whole story was liberal media generated bullshit in the first place, it's all John McCain and Lindsay Graham just making shit up, and then the liberal media runs it as the gospel, meanwhile, the White House denies that Dunford was ever sidelined, and the Pentagon denies that Dunford was ever sidelined, the LibCucks just makes this shit up, the "Alt Right Darth Vader Bannon is taking over!", and those who are concern trolls looking for any straw to grasp on to, grasp on to the straw that is thrown out there for them.

Supposedly ssu "knows how it works in Washington", and yet he's completely incapable of spotting the massive Democuck media generated hysteria campaign being run against Trump 24-7-365 ? Curious, that, eh?

There's the Liberal Media, there's Democrats, and there's John McCain and Lindsay Graham, that's 90% opposition right there, generating 90% bullshit.

Oh "the story" is just "liberal media generated bullshit"?

FROM THE SITE https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... ouncil-and

The Principals Committee (PC) shall continue to serve as the Cabinet-level senior interagency forum for considering policy issues that affect the national security interests of the United States.

-

The PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, the National Security Advisor, and the Homeland Security Advisor. The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.

Now you tell me that isn't the from the Presidential Memorandum Organization of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council. That it's not from the whitehouse.gov site. That the thing didn't cause waves and people see it as a demotion, because the whole issue has been about the Cabinet level Principals Committee. You just continue on that bull that it's the liberal media, go all along with the delusions.

Just continue with the flippant ridicule and strawmen.

Fucking wasting my time here, if you start such bullshitting things and denying the facts.

[Smitty-48]

If the President of the United States says that your presence is not required at certain meetings, then that is the will of the President of the United States, that's not "ALT RIGHT DARTH VADER BANNON TAKING OVER!!!"

That is simply the President of the United States directing how his National Security Council will run, and since he is the President of the United States, that is entirely his prerogative, and I certainly don't have a problem with that, even if the Liberal Media, the Democrats, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and some random Finnish Pogue wants to.

You are wasting your time here, ssu, it's a waste of time to try to make every little molehill into a mountain, and every liberal media narrative into a "serious problem!", don't brame me roundeye, you're the one wasting all our time here, with this phony ginned up bullshit.

If you already have Mattis and Kelly, why would you need Dunford in every single meeting? Answer; you don't. That's not being "sidelined", that's just the truth.

Trump is Mattis' boss, Mattis is Dunford's boss, if they need Dunford at the meeting, they'll let him know, what's the big whoop?

[Ex-California]

I want Mad Dog Mattis to win just because of his nickname

[adwinistrator]

Flynn's area of expertise is Intel, Flynn's job is to give Trump the Red Pill when the IC makes its "reports", Bannon is in the Kissinger chair here, he's the strategic guru, Flynn is not actually the best hand, to send against the Liberal Media & Co.

This is the exact point of the post, and the article. What is Flynn's role going to be, and what is Bannon's? Bannon is the Kissinger, but Kissinger was the NSC advisor, hence the question...

This isn't the question here. The question is that by taking a seat in the NSC, Bannon who is the chief political advisor, just put directly himself in a seat where he is personally under scrutiny. Chief political advisors work through their Presidents, they are not the actors, but now Bannon is.

Now I'm not critisizing Bannon's policies here, that's one thing. What I'm saying is that one has to look at how Washington works.

Sure, if Flynn and Bannon are in lock-step agreement with every NSC PC recommendation, there is no issue. Flynn is the one who runs the NSC, and brings the determinations of the NSC to Trump. If Bannon is in the minority for a recommendation in the NSC PC, will he then advise Trump to go with his recommendation, or the NSC?

On the other hand, there is modern precedent for this sort of setup, in terms of the national security side, you know whose White House this reminds me of? JFK's

Jack, Bobby, Kenny O'Donnell, and fuck the Joint Chiefs & Co, this Trump-a-lot seems a lot like Camelot.

Kennedy didn't trust the CIA, didn't have a DNI, and what the fuck did Max Taylor and crew ever do for him? They almost blew up the world, it was only Kennedy who pulled the Chicken Switch.

Exactly! And why do you think CIA director Pompeo was added to the NSC PC the other day, and not in NSPM-2? Smitty, weren't you the one cheering on Flynn and the DIA taking the reins?

Guess that the armed forces simply made it clear that anything that the NSC deals with is within the "issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise.”

Flynn sets the agenda, and his office decides who will attend. Everyone can say it changes nothing, but if Flynn decides he doesn't want them in a meeting, they won't be there.

If the President of the United States says that your presence is not required at certain meetings, then that is the will of the President of the United States, that's not "ALT RIGHT DARTH VADER BANNON TAKING OVER!!!"
...
If you already have Mattis and Kelly, why would you need Dunford in every single meeting? Answer; you don't. That's not being "sidelined", that's just the truth.

Trump is Mattis' boss, Mattis is Dunford's boss, if they need Dunford at the meeting, they'll let him know, what's the big whoop?

That's an argument worth making: if they aren't needed, we wont invite them. Everyone trying to say the NSPM-2 didn't change anything is wrong, so say why the current setup is better.

[adwinistrator]

“People close to Mr. Bannon said he is not accumulating power for power’s sake, but is instead helping to fill a staff leadership vacuum created, in part, by Mr. Flynn’s stumbling performance as national security adviser.”

There are new questions about where retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, fits into all of this. Internally, it remains unclear what his role is, the intelligence official said. “He has a voice at the table, but he’s overshadowed by Bannon.”

If The Daily Caller is reporting on NY Times reports, does that make it real?

Flynn has also frustrated other administration officials due to his mishandling of the National Security Council transition process and domineering attitude. Bannon and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who now serves as a senior adviser, reportedly held a meeting with Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson, Mattis and Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Pompeo to better coordinate the administration. A portion of the meeting was purposefully scheduled to discuss concerns over Flynn, according to a New York Times report.

[apeman]

My liberal friends have sent me this doomsday piece about bannon THREE times now:

http://time.com/4575780/stephen-bannon-fourth-turning/

Any comments or critiques? I don't know enough to hold any opinion on this

[kybkh]

It literally takes the entire mechanized industry of the Libcuck media to brow beat us into even remotely accepting Muslims. Mexicans? Ok. The dudes that fix my fence and sweep the floors and stay under the radar yeah. Muslims? Wtf? They are praying in the street, dressing like a ninja and every now and then one of them is popping off. If it wasn't for the tireless efforts of the MSM we would pretty much be united in declaring they need to go back.

How would you feel if you lived by a mosque and heard the call for prayer every day from your back porch?

[kybkh]

Except the whole story was liberal media generated bullshit in the first place, it's all John McCain and Lindsay Graham just making shit up, and then the liberal media runs it as the gospel, meanwhile, the White House denies that Dunford was ever sidelined, and the Pentagon denies that Dunford was ever sidelined, the LibCucks just makes this shit up, the "Alt Right Darth Vader Bannon is taking over!", and those who are concern trolls looking for any straw to grasp on to, grasp on to the straw that is thrown out there for them.

Supposedly ssu "knows how it works in Washington", and yet he's completely incapable of spotting the massive Democuck media generated hysteria campaign being run against Trump 24-7-365 ? Curious, that, eh?

There's the Liberal Media, there's Democrats, and there's John McCain and Lindsay Graham, that's 90% of the opposition right there, generating 90% bullshit. Why? We know why; because they're desperate to the point of being hysterical, because Trump is running the table on them.

Is Trump whacky? Perhaps he is, but he's not nearly as whacky as this absurdly biased, utterly corrupt, and hysterically deranged Washington insider campaign to try to stop him at any cost.

This whole Bannon-Flynn BS was easily predictable. Remember when Trump's campaign was falling apart?

The media is simply continuing their narrative about how "chaotic" everything about Trump is. I'd suggest these articles are aimed at creating conflict inside Trump's cabinet. Nobody likes to see themselves being rundown in the press as some sort of inept adviser.

Funny how one article Adwin posted was Pro-Flynn, talking about how he is methodically putting together his team and the second article was about how poor a job Flynn was doing in his role.

Consider that for a second. Consider what you know to be Flynn's opinion about the CIA/State Dept. Consider the fact that the guy was already rubbed out once by these folks for upsetting the apple cart. Consider that it's been two weeks and we already are having anonymously sourced reports from "inside the WH".

[adwinistrator]

My liberal friends have sent me this doomsday piece about bannon THREE times now:

http://time.com/4575780/stephen-bannon-fourth-turning/

Any comments or critiques? I don't know enough to hold any opinion on this

Still reading but...

There's plenty of academic criticism you can find about Strauss and Howe online. They've basically turned they're generational paradigm worldview into a business strategy consulting team... While there may be some merits to the concepts of national and political cycles of crisis-order-establishment-decay, I would argue that it's a derivative view that ignores the drivers of events throughout history. It has it's uses, in comparing the different outcomes of similar developments in history, but some people look at their work as some predictive overarching theory.

[apeman]

My liberal friends have sent me this doomsday piece about bannon THREE times now:

http://time.com/4575780/stephen-bannon-fourth-turning/

Any comments or critiques? I don't know enough to hold any opinion on this

Still reading but...

There's plenty of academic criticism you can find about Strauss and Howe online. They've basically turned they're generational paradigm worldview into a business strategy consulting team... While there may be some merits to the concepts of national and political cycles of crisis-order-establishment-decay, I would argue that it's a derivative view that ignores the drivers of events throughout history. It has it's uses, in comparing the different outcomes of similar developments in history, but some people look at their work as some predictive overarching theory.

Sure, I want to know if Bannon is really into this stuff.

Here is the breathless part:

. Bannon had clearly thought a long time both about the domestic potential and the foreign policy implications of Strauss and Howe. More than once during our interview, he pointed out that each of the three preceding crises had involved a great war, and those conflicts had increased in scope from the American Revolution through the Civil War to the Second World War. He expected a new and even bigger war as part of the current crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by the prospect.
I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing that the history of international conflict was my own specialty, he repeatedly pressed me to say we could expect a conflict at least as big as the Second World War in the near or medium term. I refused.