• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump puts Bannon on security council, dropping joint chiefs

sanman said:
Haha- surrre you do. You Googled up a list of names of people you'd never previously heard of - and now you're giving me your "expert" endorsement of them.:roll:
Click to expand...
Actually, sir, I am moderately familiar with a few of them. But you STILL haven't told me how Steve Bannon is more qualified to be making national security decisions than ANY of them. This is the third time I will ask you to do so.

sanman said:
Bannon is certainly more competent on military and strategic affairs than Obama, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

That is the funniest thing I've read all week. Why haven't you done open mic at the Yuk-Yuk Hut yet?
 
sanman said:
Breitbart isn't a "right-wing sewer"
Click to expand...

It absolutely is. It's wingnut, far-right, alt-right, neo-Nazi trash, and anyone who takes it seriously is immediately discounted from any serious conversation.

If that's you, my condolences.
 
sanman said:
Give me a break - suddenly you lifelong Lefty Libs are now all national security experts, huh? Don't make me laugh. You may imagine that Google can make you a plausible armchair expert on anything in 5 minutes - or at least give you enough info to churn out some quips as needed - but you're not fooling anybody. Your need to ridicule Trump's national security structure is driven by your slavish partisan loyalty to an obsolete political order. The US national security structure has been critically underperforming and is in dire need of reform. That reform won't happen on its own and won't happen from within. It has to be brought in from above.
Click to expand...

Give me a break- as a former Nixon Republican, wounded vet (grunt thankuverimuch), rancher, former long range tactical interdiction firearm instructor, and now a confirmed 'lefty lib' allow me.

Apparently Bannon thinks google has made him an expert as NOTHING in his resume shows he put his 4th point of contact in any sort of 'security' scenario... :roll:

He did serve in the Navy, Surface warfare aboard a destroyer in the late 70s and flunkie at the Pentagon- but to say that limited experience makes him an expert is to say my years of humping Alice makes me one as well, you good with that??? :confused:

The security structure may need reform, but turning it over to amateurs with hardened agendas never tested in the real world has been done before-

it is what we call IraqII, BushII called planting the seeds of democracy in the desert and a lot of us call the desert debacle.

Removing the joint chiefs and subbing in Bannon is foolishness, reform not insanity is the goal.

Trump seems to personify rash action without thinking it through as his edict to ban muslims left those charged with enforcing the fiat without any instruction on HOW to enforce the rash move.

Elevating Bannon is just another indicator, i just wonder how long the koolaid drinkers insist we give this loose cannon the 'benefit of the doubt'... :peace
 
Kobie said:
Trump puts Bannon on security council, dropping joint chiefs - BBC News



This is the most terrifying thing I've read so far about the travesty that has thus far been the Trump presidency.
Click to expand...

So you and the BBC believe President Trump dropped the Joint Chiefs from the NSC?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and


The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings.​

So the headline, and thus, the thread title are a lie.

Gee, what a surprise.
 
Kobie said:
And yet you can't give one. C'mon, sanman, tell me why Steve Bannon is a better person to have on the NSC than:

Gen. Joseph F. Dunford
Gen. Paul J. Selva
Gen. Mark A. Milley
Gen. Robert B. Neller
Adm. John M. Richardson
Gen. David L. Goldfein
Gen. Joseph L. Lengyel

Now, I don't trust the military with everything, but I sure as hell trust these guys more than I trust a guy whose most recent job was running a wingnut rag.
Click to expand...

Let's try this. The Military are Republicans/NEOCONS and are likely supportive of the NWO hegemony ongoing since 2002. i don't think Trump supports the NWO from his oratical past statements. Nuland, Powers, Rice, and many other NWO warriors are gone and I hope many more follow. I don't know Bannon's position as regards the NWO, but if ha is anti NWO, then he's fine by me and better than the Military brass. I'm trying to think positive here and realistically. I'm in the wait and see mode and a little concerned about the Yemen attack as the targets are ill defined. You can't support Saudi Arabia and be anti ISIS, but calling them al Qeda might define a rose as a skunk. Will the MSM clear this up or is obfuscating the message the object?
/
 
sanman said:
Give me a break - suddenly you lifelong Lefty Libs are now all national security experts, huh? Don't make me laugh.

You may imagine that Google can make you a plausible armchair expert on anything in 5 minutes - or at least give you enough info to churn out some quips as needed - but you're not fooling anybody.

Your need to ridicule Trump's national security structure is driven by your slavish partisan loyalty to an obsolete political order.

The US national security structure has been critically underperforming and is in dire need of reform. That reform won't happen on its own and won't happen from within. It has to be brought in from above.
Click to expand...

Speaking of experts on national security matters. Can you explain what experiences Bannon has with national security and why he's qualified for that position?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
If been a looooong time since the GOP has put country before party.

So there's no guarantee things will change now, but it would be nice is someone from the GOP, ANYONE spoke up about what's been going on this past week. Trump puts a rightwing lunatic reporter on the Security Council? WTF?

And again.. Another EO? Where's all the outrage from the so called lovers of the Constitution and people who want to limit the powers of the President so they criticized Obama every single time he wrote an EO?

The Republican Party is a disgrace. I just hope we survive this nightmare they have caused.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that it was a disgrace when Obama used his pen and a phone, and it should be a disgrace when President Trump follows suit?
 
sanman said:
Haha- surrre you do. You Googled up a list of names of people you'd never previously heard of - and now you're giving me your "expert" endorsement of them.:roll:

That could have been the list of senior officers at Starfleet Command and I doubt you'd have known the difference.

"Admiral Cartwright - yup, looks solid to me. What do you think of his solution to the Kobie-yashi Maru test?"

Bannon is certainly more competent on military and strategic affairs than Obama, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Not the point- I asked if you considered him qualified? And 1 other teeny weeny question.

JANFU said:
You consider him qualified??
Imagine if he had to appear before the Senate for confirmation in anything to do with National Security.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#Service_in_U.S._Navy
Click to expand...

Service in U.S. Navy

Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.[32]
Click to expand...
 
Kobie said:
What's bad about removing military brass from the NSC and replacing them with Steve Bannon? Is that a serious question?

Tell me what's GOOD about it.
Click to expand...
I am no fan of Steve Bannon however he did serve his country for 7 years in the Navy as an officer.
According to Wiki
Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS*Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon
 
vesper said:
I am no fan of Steve Bannon however he did serve his country for 7 years in the Navy as an officer.
According to Wiki
Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS*Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon
Click to expand...

Good for him. What's he spent the rest of his life doing? Certainly nothing that qualifies him to be on the NSC, at the expense of the Joint Chiefs.
 
ocean515 said:
So you and the BBC believe President Trump dropped the Joint Chiefs from the NSC?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and


The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings.​

So the headline, and thus, the thread title are a lie.

Gee, what a surprise.
Click to expand...

So being demoted from being on the council to advisers means they're still on the council?

The headline is not a lie, it's ironclad fact.
 
Kobie said:
So being demoted from being on the council to advisers means they're still on the council?

The headline is not a lie, it's ironclad fact.
Click to expand...

I pasted a direct quote from President Trumps EO. Why are you lying about it?
 
ocean515 said:
President Trump believe he is. It doesn't matter one whit what his detractors think.
Click to expand...

I take it that you endorse his appointment?
 
Kobie said:
So being demoted from being on the council to advisers means they're still on the council?

The headline is not a lie, it's ironclad fact.
Click to expand...

This story appears to be a typical liberal media lie

aka fake news
 
ocean515 said:
So you and the BBC believe President Trump dropped the Joint Chiefs from the NSC?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and


The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings.​

So the headline, and thus, the thread title are a lie.

Gee, what a surprise.
Click to expand...

Really
Trump Memorandum on Organization of National Security Council
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. The Counsel to the President, the Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may attend all PC meetings.
Click to expand...
 
Putting Steve Bannon in any position of responsibility in the US Government is akin to making George Armstrong Custer a Sioux Chief or Adolf Hitler a rabbi.
 
Huh, lookie here:

"Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia, the son of Doris (Herr) and Martin Bannon, a telephone lineman.[25][26] His family were working-class, Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union Democrats.[27][28] He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1976 and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. In 1985,[30] Bannon received a Master of Business Administration degree with honors from Harvard Business School.[31]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#Service_in_U.S._Navy
 
sanman said:
You just wrote a horoscope prediction. Nothing useful or specific at all.
Click to expand...

perhaps you should read my response more carefully.
 
JANFU said:
I take it that you endorse his appointment?
Click to expand...

Why not? The President of the United States has the discretion to appoint people as he sees fit.

From Wiki:

Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon
 
ocean515 said:
So you and the BBC believe President Trump dropped the Joint Chiefs from the NSC? The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings. So the headline, and thus, the thread title are a lie. Gee, what a surprise.
Click to expand...

Gee what a surprise, a partisan poster wanting us to buy into the alternate facts propaganda machine- the same place who says the crowd size was YUGE for Donald, the BIGGEST EVER!!!!! :roll:

Let's spit those hairs, the JC will attend SOME meetings, but will only attend the highest level at the pleasure of the President. Bannon will attend ALL meetings, I guess if he wants to.

Formerly the JC attended ALL meetings and political strategists at the pleasure of the President....

see the difference??? :peace
 
JANFU said:
Really
Trump Memorandum on Organization of National Security Council
Click to expand...

The thread title is a lie.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was not dropped from the Security Council.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was not dropped from the Principles Committee.

The only thing that changed was that members attending meetings of the Principles Committee would reflect the topic being discussed.

Seems to me efficiency in government activity is a scary proposition to some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom