Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When do we get past all the parliamentary bullshit and start having congressmen beat the shit out of senators with canes?

We've had canings in Congress before.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.5454284558ae

Bannon wants a war on Washington. Now he’s part of one inside the White House.

Stephen K. Bannon — the combative architect of the nationalistic strategy that delivered President Trump to the White House — now finds himself losing ground in an internecine battle within the West Wing that pits the so-called “Bannonites” against a growing and powerful faction of centrist financiers led by the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Less than 100 days into Trump’s chaotic presidency, the White House is splintering over policy issues ranging from tax reform to trade. The daily tumult has created an atmosphere of tension and panic within the West Wing, leaving aides fearing for their jobs and cleaving former allies into rivals sniping at one another in the media.

The infighting spilled into full view this week after Trump removed Bannon from the National Security Council’s “principals committee,” a reshuffling that left the president’s chief strategist less fully involved in the administration’s daily national security policy while further empowering Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s new national security adviser.

Bannon, an unkempt iconoclast, has generally chafed at the transition from firebomb campaigning to more modulated governing and for weeks has vented about the possibility of quitting, one person close to him said.

This account of the latest West Wing turmoil comes from interviews with more than 20 White House officials and people close to those in the administration, many of whom requested anonymity to offer candid assessments.

Despite the demotion, Bannon attended Wednesday’s security council meeting, and his friends and allies say the position on the Cabinet-level security committee was always supposed to be temporary — a way for Bannon to keep watch over retired Gen. Michael Flynn, the controversial former national security adviser who was fired in February after he misled the Vice President Pence about his contacts with the Russians.

But the benign explanation for Bannon’s removal belies the growing strife between Bannon, Kushner and Gary Cohn, the National Economic Council director. A registered Democrat who previously ran Goldman Sachs, Cohn is close to Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, the president’s oldest daughter and adviser.

[Inside Trump’s White House, New York moderates spark infighting and suspicion]

Fairly or unfairly, Bannon has borne the blame for several specific policy and political failures, including the scattershot drafting and implementation of Trump’s first travel ban and the strategy and approach to dealing with the conservative House Freedom Caucus, which ultimately helped tank the Republican health-care bill by failing to support it.

The battle over control of a pro-Trump outside group also pitted Bannon, Republican super-donor Rebekah Mercer and her father, Robert, against Kushner.

And Bannon has felt the brunt of general frustrations surrounding the security council. In the early days of the administration, he elevated himself, without Trump’s knowledge, to the principals committee, a move that infuriated the president. He insisted, along with Kushner, on keeping certain staffers over the objection of McMaster.

But the ultimate argument against him, said one person with knowledge of the situation, is that “Bannon isn’t making ‘Dad’ look good.”

As Kushner has expanded his portfolio and consolidated his already vast power — the 36-year-old has been called “the Trump whisperer,” with a direct line to the president — he has surrounded himself with a small group of outsiders who largely hail from the ranks of business and Wall Street. The group includes Dina Powell, an Egyptian-born former Goldman Sachs official who served in George W. Bush’s administration. Both she and Cohn are part of Kushner’s newly announced Office of American Innovation, an internal team devoted to streamlining government.

Bannon and his populist allies view Kushner’s circle with growing suspicion, worrying aloud that the group — whom they dismiss as “the Democrats,” “the New Yorkers” or, simply, “Goldman” — are pushing Trump in a “Democrat Lite” direction. Kushner’s allies, meanwhile, label Bannon’s crowd as “the Bannonites,” “the Nationalists” or “Breitbart,” the name of the incendiary conservative website he previously ran.

Bannon, grousing to friends, has cast the tensions as a battle between the globalists and the liberal Democrats, whom he worries are eager to undercut the populist movement that helped lift Trump to victory. Looming over him daily on his office walls are the promises that Trump made during the campaign, which he methodically checks off.

Cohn has met with Democrats on several occasions and appears much more comfortable offering lawmakers olive branches than does Bannon, who during the health- care fight argued in favor of forcing a vote on the doomed bill to establish a public list of Republican traitors.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich cast the disagreements as important and weighty policy debates.

“It’s not about petty soap-opera stuff,” Gingrich said. “Bannon represents a very fundamental change in how we think about economic policy, taking us back to the era from Alexander Hamilton up through the 1920s when we were a much more national economy. Gary represents the New York international worldview and is a very competent and smart guy. There’s a natural tension.

“I think it’s very helpful to have the tension and the arguments,” he added. “I think presidents are much better served if they have different sources of information.”

The president, asked by reporters Thursday on Air Force One if a staff shake-up is looming, said he thought the administration had “already shaken things up.”

“I think we’ve had one of the most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency,” Trump said, wrongly referring to the 11 weeks he has been in office.

Some friends of both Bannon and Kushner, who talk daily and still have a cordial rapport, say the tensions are mostly driven by policy.

[White House disavows two controversial tax ideas hours after officials say they’re under consideration]

In February, for instance, a group of former Republican Cabinet secretaries met with Cohn to pitch him on the idea of a carbon tax, arguing it would help reduce fossil fuel emissions while also addressing budget issues. Some left the meeting believing Cohn was open to the idea. Bannon was furious when he caught wind of the proposal, saying the White House was veering too far from Trump’s core nationalist principles as it molded its economic policy.

A meeting last week at the White House at the behest of Kushner and Cohn to discuss health care with Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and one of the architects of President Obama’s health-care bill, was another fault line. The mere existence of the staff-level discussion with Emanuel — who had previously met with Trump three times — raised concerns among conservatives that the president was serious about his threat to work with Democrats after his initial health-care proposal failed.

Bannon, allies said, still has the president’s ear, especially on key issues like immigration, where he and Trump are in a complete “mind meld.” But the chief strategist has struggled to adjust to the more regimented mores of the White House. One friend said he hates attending meetings, bemoans the need to frequently wear suits, and finds the government bureaucracy stifling. While living in Los Angeles, Bannon would sometimes participate in Breitbart conference calls before showering and in a T-shirt or bathrobe; his D.C. staff would joke about the last time he got a haircut.

Some of those who resent Kushner’s rising power have compared him to Icarus, the youth in Greek mythology who flew too close to the sun and melted his wings. But because Kushner holds so much clout, many of his rivals fear bad-mouthing him and train their ire on his deputies instead. “When you complain about Gary or Dina, you’re really complaining about Jared and what he’s doing, because you’re not able to complain about Jared around here,” said one senior White House official.

But one administration official warned that Bannon was playing “a dangerous game” because it is “not a smart strategy to go up against the president and his family. That’s a game Steve will never win.”

Patrick J. Caddell, a veteran pollster who advises Breitbart and is friends with Bannon, said that “an outsider administration is vulnerable to these kinds of cracks.”

“Steve is taking the slings and arrows, but I hope Trump understands that the attacks on Bannon are an attempt to undermine Trump,” Caddell said. “That’s the crucial point. Steve is essential to him, the only person who has a clue why the president was elected and why he’s there.”

Regardless, the ongoing drama has taken a toll on West Wing operations, where aides continue to jockey for power and worry about their job security. One senior official pointed to Trump’s interview Wednesday with the New York Times, during which at least six senior White House staffers, including Pence, crowded into the Oval Office.

“Why were they there?” asked the official, saying they should have been working on other tasks. “Now the expectation is you have to be in every picture and every meeting.”

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a White House spokeswoman, dismissed reports of palace intrigue. “There are many serious issues at hand, which the president has been totally focused on, and the only conflicts his advisers are concerned with are those that are impacting the lives and safety of Americans, as well as the citizens of the world,” she said.

Trump, for his part, enjoys a somewhat chaotic management style and so far hasn’t aligned entirely with either camp. Aides say one moment the president will praise Bannon and sound out nationalist themes. The next, he’ll see a headline about “President Bannon” and grimace.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We've had canings in Congress before.

Yep, and less than 5 years later we had the civil war.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump deflects masterfully from his Russian ties in the "American way" ie: bombing the snot out of a weak foreign power that has no reply:

https://wonkette.com/615254/trump-bo...zzing-about-it

If dead babies are the trigger...this is a campaign that has only just begun

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trump...licy-1.4061371

[Gilrandir]

Trump deflects masterfully from his Russian ties in the "American way" ie: bombing the snot out of a weak foreign power that has no reply

No reply indeed? What about the fabled Russian Pantsyr and C-300? Having being warned beforehand, they could have at least intercepted the Tomahawks.

[HopAlongBunny]

No reply indeed? What about the fabled Russian Pantsyr and C-300? Having being warned beforehand, they could have at least intercepted the Tomahawks.

Perhaps; Such a response would need Russia to have shared the warning with Assad...no idea if they did.
Syria does have the Pantsyr, supplied by Russia, whether or not Syria had a chance to use it; again I have no idea.
It might be the case that the target was just not worth the expenditure of any ammunition to defend it; airfield? there are more of those, and not like its difficult to make another one; besides Russia has loads of planes :)

[Brenus]

Russia has still not the means to oppose USA.
Putin didn't (couldn't) react to a Russian airplane shot down by Turkey and one of the crew member murdered by the militian paid by Turkey. No way in my opinion, at this time, Putin/Russia will do something.
Now, more worrying is how Russia will use this for their own purpose. If I was Ukrainian, I would be deeply worried about Trump's wording (national interest).
US president changed, US policy still the same.

[Gilrandir]

Perhaps; Such a response would need Russia to have shared the warning with Assad...no idea if they did.
Syria does have the Pantsyr, supplied by Russia, whether or not Syria had a chance to use it; again I have no idea.
It might be the case that the target was just not worth the expenditure of any ammunition to defend it; airfield? there are more of those, and not like its difficult to make another one; besides Russia has loads of planes :)

AFAIK, Russia was informed by the US about the missile strike and they got their planes and people away from the airfield which was targeted. Russia uses this airfield as a stage one (planes do not "live" there, they come to refuel and the like), so when ALL OF THEM packed and left hastily I don't think Syrians didn't guess the import of this even if they weren't directly told about what was to come.

Besides on one of the pictures of the airfield after the strike an upturned Pantsyr was spotted. So the conclusion is that Russia/Syria did have something to counter the strike with, the question is why they didn't - either they didn't dare or the weapons weren't up to the task (despite the eulogies which had been voiced before).

If I was Ukrainian, I would be deeply worried about Trump's wording (national interest).

Perhaps I missed something, so I'm not worried a bit. If you give details I might start to.

[Brenus]

Perhaps I missed something, so I'm not worried a bit. If you give details I might start to.

USA just attack a country which was not a direct danger to them under a vague pretext of national interest not to see a kind of behavior. When you see how Putin did use Kosovo precedent for his own goal...
But if you don't, don't mind me...

[Gilrandir]

USA just attack a country which was not a direct danger to them under a vague pretext of national interest not to see a kind of behavior. When you see how Putin did use Kosovo precedent for his own goal...
But if you don't, don't mind me...

Putin did it too, three years ago. Russian artillery repeatedly shelled Ukrainian soldiers (especially border guards) across the border. So nothing new is gonna happen now.

[Brenus]

Putin did it too, three years ago. Russian artillery repeatedly shelled Ukrainian soldiers (especially border guards) across the border. So nothing new is gonna happen now.

There you go...

[Sarmatian]

No reply indeed? What about the fabled Russian Pantsyr and C-300? Having being warned beforehand, they could have at least intercepted the Tomahawks.

USA and Russia like to use proxies to fight. Fighting it out with no intermediaries is so 1940's.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

USA and Russia like to use proxies to fight. Fighting it out with no intermediaries is so 1940's.

Proxies were a reasonable choice for both. USA casualty tolerance has always been lower than many, and the USSR lost 1/8 of its population between 1938 and 1946. I've heard some argue that the Russian population has still not truly recovered from that culling.

[Gilrandir]

Proxies were a reasonable choice for both. USA casualty tolerance has always been lower than many, and the USSR lost 1/8 of its population between 1938 and 1946. I've heard some argue that the Russian population has still not truly recovered from that culling.

USSR population =/= Russian population

[Seamus Fermanagh]

USSR population =/= Russian population

No, but ethnic Russians under the USSR during that period were NOT spared much. Yes, Ukraine had it worse per capita and some of the 'stans also, but it is NOT like the Russians were way better. Stalin fed everyone into the grinder to win.

[rory_20_uk]

Trump briefly looks "Presidential" and "strong" and it is something he can do to stand up to Russia that is superficially good but meaningless. Russia can continue to do what it wants. Hell, if hypothetically if every runway was destroyed Russian planes would still be enough. Until every runway is levelled along with infrastructure and the Rebels are given SAMs it will at best impede.

Putin can even get all shouty and both sides can look great to their admirers - a strong man standoff.

The USA will struggle to have a follow up that will sort out the quagmire - Russia is lucky as all they want is warm water ports and specific influence with no interest in the locals. The West has such high standards they are all but impossible since most of the locals are unclear what a resolution looks like.

[Montmorency]

The West has such high standards they are all but impossible since most of the locals are unclear what a resolution looks like.

To make like Abbe Sieyès in the Terror.

[Beskar]

Remove Assad + ??? = Problem solved?

[AE Bravo]

Remove Assad + ??? = Problem solved?

Dysfunctional democracy or caliphate.

[HopAlongBunny]

Bringing Hitler into the mix is generally a losing proposition.
Sanitizing Hitler is not usually the choice of reasonable people.
Sean Spicer hits it out of the park:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...weapons-237116

[Strike For The South]

Oh Sean.

Tillersons odds this week in Russia
2-1 remove Assad and remove Russian sanctions
10-1 status quo and a bunch of hot air about "open communication"
15-1 total breakdown, further entrenchment of ideas
25-1 polonium sandwhich.

[Brenus]

Oh Sean.
Tillersons odds this week in Russia
25-1 polonium sandwhich.

Not a chance. More like him and Putin is sure that no one will listen the USA and allies have to say...

[Greyblades]

Sean spicer denys the holocaust, even though it's obvious he was referring to hitler's reluctance to use poison gas on the battlefield and he mentions the holocaust in the same speech.

Sean spicer is set upon by journalists out for blood, part 182: this time he caves.

Trump needs to relieve this guy, he's clearly traumatized. Find someone who is better suited to surviving the shark tank.



In before husar screeches "sauron of akkad! Uh muh Gawd!"

Trump briefly looks "Presidential" and "strong" and it is something he can do to stand up to Russia that is superficially good but meaningless.

I disagree this is a big loud statement to the world that the Obama era's constant retreat is over and those small nations that provoke the USA are no longer safe. To have little ultimate impact on the syrian war effort is in america's favour as it is not to thier benefit for assad to lose, but having assad run screaming to putin to beg for more russian entanglement is. It wil be interesting to see how trump tries to capitalize on this shock to the system.

[rory_20_uk]

I disagree this is a big loud statement to the world that the Obama era's constant retreat is over and those small nations that provoke the USA are no longer safe. To have little ultimate impact on the syrian war effort is in america's favour as it is not to thier benefit for assad to lose, but having assad run screaming to putin to beg for more russian entanglement is. It wil be interesting to see how trump tries to capitalize on this shock to the system.

Yet Trump was saying the exact opposite as of a few days ago and throughout the campaign about how he was going to get the USA out of NATO / the Middle East and so on.

Obama's "retreat" included attacks in Lybia, and sending black hawks into Pakistan on an illegal assassination mission.

Trump sent in a small attack that managed to damage one of the 22 airbases in Syria. And then... silence. As there is no real strategy.

Russian entanglement? Apart from the planes, helicopters and ships? Oh I see - it is a ploy to cunningly get Russia to take control of the assets they want and now seem to be helping against an illegal act by the USA. That is such a cunning plan...

[Greyblades]

Yet Trump was saying the exact opposite as of a few days ago and throughout the campaign about how he was going to get the USA out of NATO / the Middle East and so on.

Which is why this was a strike and not an invasion. A smack on the jaw to dispell the idea that US will ignore the use of chemical weapons, without having to set foot in the quagmire.

Obama's "retreat" included attacks in Lybia, and sending black hawks into Pakistan on an illegal assassination mission.

Obama's retreat was talking tough on chemical weapons and then doing nothing when ghouta was gassed. It compromised america's credibility.

Russian entanglement? Apart from the planes, helicopters and ships? Oh I see - it is a ploy to cunningly get Russia to take control of the assets they want and now seem to be helping against an illegal act by the USA. That is such a cunning plan...

Planes, helicopters and ships, but no tanks or front line infantry. Russia like us doesnt want syria to turn into another afghanistan and is using Assad's men as a proxy while supporting them from a point of relative safety.

Putin does not want to have to invade properly and every strike against assad makes it more likely he will have to eventually if he wants to secure his naval bases.

[rory_20_uk]

Which is why this was a strike and not an invasion. A smack on the jaw to dispell the idea that US will ignore the use of chemical weapons without setting a foot into the quagmire.

Obama's retreat was talking tough on chemical weapons and then doing nothing when ghouta was gassed. It compromised america's credibility.

Planes, helicopters and ships, but no tanks or front line infantry. Russia like us doesnt want syria to turn into another afghanistan and is using Assad's men as a proxy while supporting them from a point of relative safety.

Putin does not want to have to invade properly and every strike against assad makes it more likely he will have to if he wants to secure his naval bases.

I do find it odd how the red line is one method of indiscriminate killing.

Smack to the jaw? Making Assad closer to Iran and Russia is smacking who in the jaw? Assad was killing civilians within a day or so - but thank goodness with conventional munitions. Surely Vietnam showed if nothing else that dropping vast amounts of ordinance by itself doesn't win a war. Yes, the bombs these days are more powerful and targeted, but so few in number.

Obama shouldn't have mentioned red lines as he was outplayed by Russia.

Troops on the ground are courtesy of Assad, Iran and Hezbollah. They are doing a decent job of crushing the rebels in all the main centres whilst Russia bombs any things that are too tough. Given they have few qualms about overuse of force it'll probably continue to work.

A few cruise missiles made a very small local difference tactically - planes now have to use other bases until they rebuild. Russia might even give some some army surplus to help get it all up and running.

If Russia has troops in the ports they want, why need they go further? America has a base in Cuba that the locals didn't allow them to have.

[Greyblades]

I do find it odd how the red line is one method of indiscriminate killing.

Smack to the jaw? Making Assad closer to Iran and Russia is smacking who in the jaw? Assad was killing civilians within a day or so - but thank goodness with conventional munitions. Surely Vietnam showed if nothing else that dropping vast amounts of ordinance by itself doesn't win a war. Yes, the bombs these days are more powerful and targeted, but so few in number.

I'm not going to talk the morality of being selective in which methods of killing is allowed; it's rather unimportant, the point is to show that america's promises and threats are worth something again.

Assad being driven closer to the russians and iran is also unimportant as it's too late for that; he's there already, bridge burned.

Obama shouldn't have mentioned red lines as he was outplayed by Russia.

Agreed.

Troops on the ground are courtesy of Assad, Iran and Hezbollah. They are doing a decent job of crushing the rebels in all the main centres whilst Russia bombs any things that are too tough. Given they have few qualms about overuse of force it'll probably continue to work.

A few cruise missiles made a very small local difference tactically - planes now have to use other bases until they rebuild. Russia might even give some some army surplus to help get it all up and running.

Which is good, the US doesnt want another somalia and the rebels are long past the point of being desireable puppets.

If Russia has troops in the ports they want, why need they go further? America has a base in Cuba that the locals didn't allow them to have.

They need to go further because the rebels wont let him keep the bases, Russia would have to either keep fighting off attempts to dislodge them for decades to come, or set up another proxy, in which case they might as well have kept assad.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not going to talk the morality of being selective in which methods of killing is allowed; it's rather unimportant, the point is to show that america's promises and threats are worth something again.

Which is good, the US doesnt want another somalia and the rebels are long past the point of being desireable puppets.


They need to go further because the rebels wont let him keep the bases, Russia would have to either keep fighting off attempts to dislodge them for decades to come, or set up another proxy, in which case they might as well have kept assad.

That's the point - America's promise was they were not going to get involved in the Middle East. There was no threat, just action without warning. And now, no follow up or strategy. Amateur hour.

If the rebels are almost as bad as Assad then what is the point? Unless this is purely about the methodology of the killing. Nonsensical to me.

I am sure Russia can manage to protect bases if they want them. Rather like the Israelis have managed to keep the Golan Heights, Russia in Crimea and so on. Give some weapons to the nearby warlords to kill their enemies usually works.

Russia will back whichever puppet looks like winning in the areas of the country they wish to control, as will Iran. I doubt Russia has any loyalty more than a chess grandmaster does.

[Husar]

Sean spicer is set upon by journalists out for blood, part 182: this time he caves.

Trump needs to relieve this guy, he's clearly traumatized. Find someone who is better suited to surviving the shark tank.

Fascist alt-right, anti-press propaganda garbage from Trumpblades! Uh muh guhd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111

Sean Spicer says stupid things all the time and this wasn't even an exception since the point he did want to make was just as idiotic as any possible misinterpretation. Cry me a blathering, bloody river for cheeese sake!!!!!!!!!11111111111111

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39585029

Trump now backs NATO - against "Terrorists" rather than Russia.

Uh huh.