Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

Steve Bannon is out

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

Phuck!!!! It's a real life version of the Apprentice. 

Except President Trump is frightened of confrontation and has all the firings done by other people when he is far away. TV star Trump wouldn't run like that.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, easybronc said:

Bannon could be a thorn for some of the GOP but who would he go after that depends on Breitbart readers for support?  

McConnell in Kentucky?

I think the point is that if Bannon goes after the mainstream GOP, where does Trump go? And if he stays with the alt right, can he govern?

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I think the point is that if Bannon goes after the mainstream GOP, where does Trump go? And if he stays with the alt right, can he govern?

I don't see how all this hurts Trump.  Bannon in the White House hurt Trump, Bannon going after a few GOPers will probably help Trump.

       

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, easybronc said:

I don't see how all this hurts Trump.  Bannon in the White House hurt Trump, Bannon going after a few GOPers will probably help Trump.

How? The type of guys Bannon goes after don't need the alt right.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, easybronc said:

I don't see how all this hurts Trump.  Bannon in the White House hurt Trump, Bannon going after a few GOPers will probably help Trump.

Trump and the Alt Right can't govern on their own. The GOPers they go after are the ones needed to govern. Trump and some fraction of the House ain't enough. And if Trump goes that route I think it sets the stage for being completely crushed in the midterm elections. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe Bannon saying he submitted his resignation several days ago.  He got canned and he's just trying to make it look like he's going out a winner.  He's just like Trump.  Bannon is full of hyperbole and bluster, trying to scare the public with what he says he's going to do.  The fact is he lost his powerful position and is now an outlier.  Big deal, let him attack others in the WH that were responsible for him getting kicked out.  Breitbart will not be mainstream, no matter how much money Robert Mercer feeds him.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bannon's first move going to war for Trump is to attack...Trump. Hmmm.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/22/bannon-breitbart-trump-afghanistan-241884?lo=ap_a1

The new, re-Bannoned Breitbart didn’t seem to hold back at all.

“Trump’s ‘America First’ Base Unhappy with Flip-Flop Afghanistan Speech,” blared one headline.

The lead of the main story contained a series of subtle digs: “President Trump unveiled his plan for Afghanistan after seven months of deliberation Monday evening, announcing tweaks around the edges of the current strategy instead of a different approach,” read the lead sentence of Breitbart’s wrap on the speech.

And other articles seemed tuned to frustrate Trump and tweak rivals of Bannon.

One piece was headlined “His McMaster’s voice: Is Trump’s Afghanistan policy different from Obama?” It amounted to a two-fer: Ripping national security adviser H.R. McMaster — a former Bannon rival — and likening Trump’s decisions to those of Obama.

Another article drilled down on similarities between the two presidents’ approaches in Afghanistan, contending that Trump “specifically echoed his predecessor’s 2009 speech, after acknowledging that the war had gone on too long.”

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Bannon's first move going to war for Trump is to attack...Trump. Hmmm.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/22/bannon-breitbart-trump-afghanistan-241884?lo=ap_a1

The new, re-Bannoned Breitbart didn’t seem to hold back at all.

“Trump’s ‘America First’ Base Unhappy with Flip-Flop Afghanistan Speech,” blared one headline.

The lead of the main story contained a series of subtle digs: “President Trump unveiled his plan for Afghanistan after seven months of deliberation Monday evening, announcing tweaks around the edges of the current strategy instead of a different approach,” read the lead sentence of Breitbart’s wrap on the speech.

And other articles seemed tuned to frustrate Trump and tweak rivals of Bannon.

One piece was headlined “His McMaster’s voice: Is Trump’s Afghanistan policy different from Obama?” It amounted to a two-fer: Ripping national security adviser H.R. McMaster — a former Bannon rival — and likening Trump’s decisions to those of Obama.

Another article drilled down on similarities between the two presidents’ approaches in Afghanistan, contending that Trump “specifically echoed his predecessor’s 2009 speech, after acknowledging that the war had gone on too long.”

This is what I thought would happen. I see the Right atomizing.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2017 at 8:10 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Bannon's first move going to war for Trump is to attack...Trump. Hmmm.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/22/bannon-breitbart-trump-afghanistan-241884?lo=ap_a1

The new, re-Bannoned Breitbart didn’t seem to hold back at all.

“Trump’s ‘America First’ Base Unhappy with Flip-Flop Afghanistan Speech,” blared one headline.

The lead of the main story contained a series of subtle digs: “President Trump unveiled his plan for Afghanistan after seven months of deliberation Monday evening, announcing tweaks around the edges of the current strategy instead of a different approach,” read the lead sentence of Breitbart’s wrap on the speech.

And other articles seemed tuned to frustrate Trump and tweak rivals of Bannon.

One piece was headlined “His McMaster’s voice: Is Trump’s Afghanistan policy different from Obama?” It amounted to a two-fer: Ripping national security adviser H.R. McMaster — a former Bannon rival — and likening Trump’s decisions to those of Obama.

Another article drilled down on similarities between the two presidents’ approaches in Afghanistan, contending that Trump “specifically echoed his predecessor’s 2009 speech, after acknowledging that the war had gone on too long.”

We can be grateful Bannon's ass is out of the WH, thanks to John Kelly.  Bannon pushed for that idea of contracting out the Afgan fighting with Betsy DeVos' brother heading 10,000 civilian soldiers paid by we the taxpayers.  So what does it mean when they return from fighting there?  A private militia added to those fringe groups would have been similar to Hitler's brown shirts.  That's how dangerous Bannon is.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

This is what I thought would happen. I see the Right atomizing.

Good.  Hopefully we see the right form into 2 or 3 parties in my life time.  I really think you would see similar discord on the left after the Bernie scandal if Trump was not acting as a unifying force.  The left needs to be split into two parties as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Good.  Hopefully we see the right form into 2 or 3 parties in my life time.  I really think you would see similar discord on the left after the Bernie scandal if Trump was not acting as a unifying force.  The left needs to be split into two parties as well.

The splits wouldn't last long though. New coalitions would form. Our system is set up to sustain two parties. It has many downsides, but it increases stability.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Elaborate, if you have the time.

Look at the 1850's. A two party system went through its 2nd change. The problem was the two party coalitions were not equipped to deal with the defining social, cultural, and ultimately sectional; disagreement. They could not coalesce around enough opposing issues to overcome the main issue of the day dividing the country, which was slavery. The whigs fell apart because they kept losing, despite having ideas much of the country agreed with. The democrats then fell apart because the issue that divided the whigs could not be reconciled by their disparate factions. This was the failure in the system. That a sectional disagreement among the states could lead to some of the states saying we no longer want to be a part of this union. We'll go our own way.

That was the failure. The success was every other decade since Washington. In order to take power, a broad coalition that reaches across the sectional cultures of our country is required. You can't win the presidency without appealing to a wide swath of the country. You can't win congress without a party system that allows for disagreements among priorities in the service of broader agreement. It's useless to be a conservative yet racist south, like we saw in the 1960's, when your progressive political party stops advocating racist policies. You move into the conservative party, the Republicans, you had aligned with on things other than race. That is the success of our system.

And it has been effective since our inception. One broken party cannot stay broken for long, as the other party will absorb elements of the other to gain power. The broken party will come together in a different way, with different objects and ideals, in opposition to the party in power. The party in power will lose strength because a winning coalition is really hard to maintain when the country's needs are always changing and it's people are always culturally evolving.

Both parties are broken. This is frightening. In this way it does resemble the 1850's. But identity as American citizens as opposed to citizens of Maine and Virginia is world's different than then. We have a sectional split, rural and urban. But it isn't over a single unifying subject. We need a realignment. I think we'll get one. I don't expect multiple parties for very long. That would only exacerbate the unbroken party's dominance, which throughout our history our system has shown it will not endure.  

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Look at the 1850's. A two party system went through its 2nd change. The problem was the two party coalitions were not equipped to deal with the defining social, cultural, and ultimately sectional; disagreement. They could not coalesce around enough opposing issues to overcome the main issue of the day dividing the country, which was slavery. The whigs fell apart because they kept losing, despite having ideas much of the country agreed with. The democrats then fell apart because the issue that divided the whigs could not be reconciled by their disparate factions. This was the failure in the system. That a sectional disagreement among the states could lead to some of the states saying we no longer want to be a part of this union. We'll go our own way.

That was the failure. The success was every other decade since Washington. In order to take power, a broad coalition that reaches across the sectional cultures of our country is required. You can't win the presidency without appealing to a wide swath of the country. You can't win congress without a party system that allows for disagreements among priorities in the service of broader agreement. It's useless to be a conservative yet racist south, like we saw in the 1960's, when your progressive political party stops advocating racist policies. You move into the conservative party, the Republicans, you had aligned with on things other than race. That is the success of our system.

And it has been effective since our inception. One broken party cannot stay broken for long, as the other party will absorb elements of the other to gain power. The broken party will come together in a different way, with different objects and ideals, in opposition to the party in power. The party in power will lose strength because a winning coalition is really hard to maintain when the country's needs are always changing and it's people are always culturally evolving.

Both parties are broken. This is frightening. In this way it does resemble the 1850's. But identity as American citizens as opposed to citizens of Maine and Virginia is world's different than then. We have a sectional split, rural and urban. But it isn't over a single unifying subject. We need a realignment. I think we'll get one. I don't expect multiple parties for very long. That would only exacerbate the unbroken party's dominance, which throughout our history our system has shown it will not endure.  

I've been thinking a lot about this post. I'm usually pretty pessimistic, but thinking about the above gives me some hope that we may come out of the current divisions via a fission of the existing parties and a subsequent coalescence.

At the risk of being accused of thread derailment, I would like to add an element for consideration. I came across this whole thinking about Lawlor's post. I'm not at all implying that the Dems don't have tremendous challenges. The GOP though, or whatever eventually takes its place after a realignment, must absolutely broaden its appeal to adjust to the nation's changing demographics. As an example, I post the pictures of the 2017 Congressional interns of the respective parties.

 

IMG_0976.JPG

IMG_0977.JPG

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I've been thinking a lot about this post. I'm usually pretty pessimistic, but thinking about the above gives me some hope that we may come out of the current divisions via a fission of the existing parties and a subsequent coalescence.

At the risk of being accused of thread derailment, I would like to add an element for consideration. I came across this whole thinking about Lawlor's post. I'm not at all implying that the Dems don't have tremendous challenges. The GOP though, or whatever eventually takes its place after a realignment, must absolutely broaden its appeal to adjust to the nation's changing demographics. As an example, I post the pictures of the 2017 Congressional interns of the respective parties.

 

IMG_0976.JPG

IMG_0977.JPG

 

Wow.

A couple of thoughts:

Democrats like putting black girls in the front row of their pictures.

Republicans picture looks like a BYU pep rally.

I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns, and money
The shit has hit the fan

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...