Slashdot Mirror
Bannon Loses National Security Council Role in Trump Shakeup (bloomberg.com)
Top presidential strategist Steve Bannon has been booted from the National Security Council amid a reshuffling of the key panel, Bloomberg reports Wednesday morning. President Donald Trump reorganized the council, removing Bannon and downgrading the role of his homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, the report added, citing multiple sources. From the report: Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, was elevated to the National Security Council's principals committee at the beginning of Trump's presidency. The move drew criticism from some members of Congress and Washington's foreign policy establishment. A White House official said that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting. He's no longer needed with McMaster in charge of the council, the official said. Trump fired Flynn on Feb. 13 for not disclosing to the president or to Vice President Mike Pence the extent of his conversations with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, before Trump's inauguration.
Not news for nerds.
Why is this on Slashdot?
siphoned off? That's the question we should be asking, along with why someone like him would be allowed anywhere near a national security post.
burning down. Trump's wall is burning down, and he lit the fire.
Seriously though, he is already alienated from half the population of the United States. The people he put in position around himself profoundly represent the half that likes him, which is why he put them there. The path he is taking will leave him completely alone even across the populace. He will have nothing but his paranoia to keep him company. The idea of that makes me nervous.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
But how come no story on Susan Rice having unmasked multiple people in the Trump camp. It should be noted that she stated "she didn't do it, and had no knowledge of it." And of course that was proven untrue. And now we're seeing the claims making the rounds of "It wasn't political" but why wasn't the FBI involved then? Why did she do something that was outside of the preview of her job(advise the President and consume intelligence summaries)? Why does this appear to have been a case of her setting a new precedent(the unmasking). Why were they unmasked by her, when all 3 letter agencies could do this on their own if they're conducting an investigation.
And of course, why are so many of the media silent on this. When they were all over other major events similar to this and licking their chops like a dog seeing a steak. Well you can all have fun now.
Om, nomnomnom...
Bannon lasted longer than I thought he would. For a time it almost seemed like he might be able to outmaneuver the Kushners, but having Ivanka installed in the White House and having Jared running around as an official messenger and errand boy demonstrates that in the end, the only people Trump will ever really trust is his family.
And that's fine by me. Whatever I think of Trump, I actually think the Kushners are half-way reasonable people, and it's a lot better having them whispering in his ear than that vile racist troll Bannon.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nothing to see here. Move along. ...
Can I interest you in chemical warfare in Syria? If so, remember, only we know who launched the chemical weapons. Everyone else has it wrong. Everyone!
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
If you exclude the corrupt liberal magnet sanctuary cities, Trump is widely supported.
That's why Hillary lost.
What does this have to do with computers?
Hey kids,
Remember when Dick Cheney prepared detailed spreadsheets with unmasked identifies of Obama and his associates based on NSA intercepts and freely circulated it for political purposes?
Wasn't that cool?
Because it's totally cool when Susan Rice did it, which is why this story -- which has fuck all to do with anything that this site pretends to be about -- is on the front page but nothing about her activities deserve a single comment.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Bannon appointed himself to the NSC by having Trump signed off on an executive order that he didn't read and didn't find out about until it got mentioned in the media. Your tax dollars at work.
On a related note, Trump had played twice as much golf in two months than Obama did in eight years.
Hillary Clinton was barely tolerated by half of the Democrat voters. That's why Hillary lost. Trump was a barely tolerated candidate among Republicans, but not quite weak enough to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. For example, take a look at her first-amendment positions and you'll see someone who is way to the right of center. When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
As a loud and proud american trump supporter we should be focusing on hillary's emails - what did she send!?
I'd vote libertarian every time; good for the populace.
Hillary was installed by corrupt Democratic party. A vote for Democrat is a vote for corruption. (see Obama White House, Hillary, Bill, FBI, DoJ)
It used to be a site for the tech and science news
How much private citizen data has he already
Not as much as Susan Rice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
It's not really much of a choice, and that's the problem. If the other Republican, Democrat, third party, and independent candidates had a presence in the final election and in the debates, and if we used an alternative voting system to avoid the spoiler effect, then we certainly would have voted in a candidate more people prefer.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Political stories as long as they're fit the narrative eh?
Watch for US involvement in Syria to get ratcheted up again. The CIA was already pushing another false flag gas attack yesterday, and now today Bannon is out.
Thumbs up
You need to ask Susan Rice why she had Trump bugged.
Steve Bannon is still on the NSC, he's just not a principal member. He is still allowed to go to all the meetings he wants to. He was only able to make one meeting meeting he was a principal member. Thus no real change.
Hillary was so bad of a candidate that she could only be competitive against an idiot like Donald Trump. Trump was so bad of a candidate that he could only be competitive against a corrupt career politician like Hillary Clinton.
The people are so bought into the cycle of voting for the lesser evil that even with historically polarizing, horrible, and unliked candidates, 3rd parties still barely got 2.5% of the vote...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Hillary Clinton was barely tolerated by half of the Democrat voters. That's why Hillary lost. Trump was a barely tolerated candidate among Republicans, but not quite weak enough to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. For example, take a look at her first-amendment positions and you'll see someone who is way to the right of center.
I'm not sure how you're defining the left/right divide, but at this time in history pro-first-amendment is very much a right-wing position and very much not a left-wing position. The left is doing more against free speech every year right now than the right has done in all of history.
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
That ringing sound you keep hearing? It's the cluephone. Might want to answer it.
Do you have ESP?
I'd vote libertarian every time; good for the populace.
That's some good shit you're putting in your bong.
I'm not sure how you're defining the left/right divide, but at this time in history pro-first-amendment is very much a right-wing position and very much not a left-wing position.
Absolutely, unless you're a woman, or black, or gay, or a Muslim, or pretty much any race/sex/characteristic other than a straight white male.
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
He's apparently a corporatocrat, which makes him just as much of a libertarian as most of the people who call themselves libertarian. Don't like it? Separate yourself from that label to escape the association with all the crypto-corporatocrats hiding among you. Sometimes a label is too tainted and has to be discarded.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Hillary was a Republican running as a democrat? Huh? Not even close.
Hillary was *all* democrat, lock stock and barrel.. She just hit the general election knowing that radical leftist doesn't win elections so she tried to run as far right as her liberal democratic base would allow w/o howling about it.
You remember the discussions about abortion and the Heller ruling at the last debate? She had no choice but to shore up her base and took the radical liberal leftist positions on these issues at that point because she knew they were not going to show up and vote if she didn't. She's most decidedly a democrat, running as a democrat, unless you think she's just a liar who was going with what she thought was the prevailing winds...
Now if you want to argue Trump was a democrat running as a republican you might have more of a case. He wasn't bound by traditional republican views on social issues, at least during the campaign (and one would argue isn't even now). However, I think he's really what he appeared to be and marketed himself as, which turns out to be a non-politically correct position which is derived from what he thinks is common sense. It's this "common sense" thing that got him elected in the face of the Access Hollywood tapes, being out spent and being the underdog the whole time.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If you exclude the corrupt liberal magnet sanctuary cities, Trump is widely supported.
At the moment, 40.7 percent of the U.S. population approves of Trump, while 53.7% disapprove.
so your definition of "corrupt liberal magnet sanctuary cities" seems to be "the majority of Americans."
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
Please for the love of god do not refer to Trump as a libertarian. He has as many anti-libertarian positions as pro-libertarian positions, and is better described as a fascist. I apologize for going all Godwin, but calling Trump libertarian is like calling Hitler a socialist because he was head of the national socialist party.
Libertarians hate him as much as anyone else does, for many of the same reasons as anyone else.
So sad to see the libertarian label co-opted by nutcases.
As to the point of this thread, I think Trump winning can be attributed to the following:
1. Unrepresentative elections in the form of the electoral college.
2. Widespread distrust of establishment on both sides of the political aisle.
4. Hillary in particular having a particular cultural-historical-political role in the US as a lightning rod for conservative-leaning individuals.
...., and if we used an alternative voting system to avoid the spoiler effect, then we certainly would have voted in a candidate more people prefer.
That's the point: the vote counting methodology has to be changed to eliminate the spoiler effect. "If the other Republican, Democrat, third party, and independent candidates had a presence in the final election and in the debates," is not the issue. The spoiler effect is.
Look, here's the way the vote counting currently works: third candidates have to take votes away from one or both of the other candidates, and in fact, what happens is that they take votes away from the candidate that is most similar to them. So, with the current system, a third party is friendly-fire: it: always results in fewer votes for the candidate that the third party candidate most agrees with.
This has to be changed if third party candidates are to have any viabiliity.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The Huffington Post said he was a NAZI and that's good enough for me. I don't want NAZIs in the US government and neither should you. And no, I won't bother to research where this information came from, because NAZI.
Have a nice day.
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian? LOL.
Oh, yes. Libertarians are basically the party of "give tax cuts to rich people." They claim to have other issue, but they rarely pay attention to them. And "more tax cuts for billionaires! is the one part of Trump's platform that he has never wavered on.
I can't think of any definition of "Libertarian" that matches Trump. What are you thinking there?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Bannon's new title is "Secretary in Charge of Doing Rails of Coke off the Toilet Tanks in the White House Bathroom".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hillary didn't lose though. She won the popular vote.
It was the non-democratic electoral college who ignored the popular vote and voted in Trump.
the only loser here is America's "Democracy"
The mud was all the noise around Trump and Russia (always ridiculous on the face of things since Hillary had hundreds of millions of ties to Russia and the left regularly holds protests with Russian sponsored communist groups).
What is happening now is called "clarity", suddenly understanding where all of the leaks on Trump and Russia came from... there turned out to be nothing to the leaks but it's quite clear now the leaks were not only illegal but (as Rice admitted) came from people who spoke with former president Obama every day.
But you just keep on trying to stir up that mud - all its doing is making you even dirtier.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How's Repeal & Replace going for you?
I disagree with your assessment of why T won. T was basically a roll-the-dice choice. Hillary was more or less a known quantity: mostly competent but bland. T presented a chance of being a true reformer but also a chance of being a dud.
It was the pioneering spirit in Americans that made them gamble at the polls. Voters have Captain Orange taking the USA Enterprise into a Strange New Frontier, full well knowing we might find paradise, Borg, and/or be infested with orange tribbles that double as toupees.
T is a casino salesman by trade: he knows how to hype the fun of gambling and exploration, plunging the ship into a dark uncharted nebula.
Let's just hope we don't hear, "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an apocalypse reverser!"
Table-ized A.I.
Hillary was a Republican running as a democrat? Huh? Not even close.
Well, perhaps if social issues are your wedge issues, that's pretty true for Hillary, her husband, and even Obama. however, from the Democrat/left side, if looking at national security, privacy rights, economy, foreign policy, etc. They all appear as Republicans. The main complaint about Obama by those that voted for him was that it was pretty much a continuation of Bush on such policies. He may have gotten through some form of universal healthcare, but pretty much folded on FISA, business, Middle East, etc.
The MSM is now saying that the Rice story is "sexist and racist." So didn't take long to pull those cards. It's like the Democrats think they can do anything if it's blamed on somebody who's female and/or a minority.
More like a plan to spy on everyone they oppose, make diversity akin to victim status so they can get away with anything, and create a electoral majority that's dependent on government handouts so that they can control the future of the country.
Personally, in my view Obama succumb to reality in foreign affairs. He had only one rule during his initial campaign "Get out of foreign wars and don't start any new ones." Once he got into office, reality slapped him in the face and he realized just how bad of a policy his campaign bashing Bush's war had been. That's why he not only left Gitmo open, but got us into another middle east war... By the Way, Don't fool yourself into thinking he left Iraq because by the time he left office we had troops in Iraq as "advisers" fighting ISIS, something HE created by leaving Iraq before he should have...
Please... There NEVER would have been a time to leave Iraq when it would have been actually "ok".
It's been stated by military advisers (prior to Bush Jr) that going to war in the Middle East is an endless thing. Once there we would NEVER leave. Bush Jr tossed that out and didn't give a fig, because of a little thing called 9/11. The prediction of those advisers though was that there will ALWAYS be a new enemy in Middle East. ALWAYS. Funny how we're now fighting ISIS. And once they're defeated, there will be another. Then another. Unless you kill everyone. Which we won't do.
This "war" will continue throughout my lifetime and likely throughout the lifetime of my children and my children's children. Because people like you are too stupid to know we shouldn't be over there to start with.
People need to go back to the beginning of the admin to see (not headlines, actual atricle CONTENT) that there was never any "there" there on the whole Bannon/NSC issue.
Before Trump had a reasonably full cabinet (which he still does not have, thanks to Senate Democrats) his people listed Banon as attending NSC meetings and the anti-Trumpers on both the left and right went insane with faux outrage. "Such a thing has NEVER been done!" was the general theme. It was then pointed out that actually both Bush43 and Obama had allowed/invited political advisors equivalent to Bannon to sit in on those meetings, but without officially listing them and telling the press corps, thus making this listing of Bannon an act of transparency. The story suddnly dissappeared - nothing - crickets... Bannon's attendance went from world-ending nightmare to not even worthy of discussion on all the mainstream news outlets. Now that a near-full cabinet is in place, including a full national security team, Bannon (who is a former US Navy intelligence officer, and thus was not so out-of-place as formerly presumed) will no longer be in those meetings (but he retains his clearances and ability to sit-in). Net change? Not much..... but now it's SHOCKING news that he's not going to be in ALL the meetings going forward that it used to be SHOCKING that he would be in [facepalm].
Bannon is despised by the Left, so there will be all sorts of glee by idiots who do not pay attention to details and who think this is a sign of a rift and impending departure. People forget that Bannon joined Trump's campaign team to help him win the election, and succeeded rather spectacularly at that in an environment where everybody on Earth seemed convinced Trump could not win. There was never any public commitment that Bannon would even stay-on for any permanent admin role. He'll stay with Trump for as long as both agree the arrangement is agreeable - it's rather typical.
I defy your label: I'm a libertarian and I would like to see corporate personhood removed. How about that?
Unfortunately we ended up with an even more self-serving and worst tempered version of Harry Mudd , but, yes, he is indeed wearing a tribble on his head.
I can't think of any definition of "Libertarian" that matches Trump. What are you thinking there?
He's the "I have more money and therefore I'm right" sort. A lot of people who call themselves libertarian fall into that category, whether their self-applied label is deserved or not.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hillary didn't lose though. She won the popular vote.
It was the non-democratic electoral college who ignored the popular vote and voted in Trump.
the only loser here is America's "Democracy"
She didn't win the popular vote. She did get a plurality of it, but that doesn't equate to winning. Especially since the President isn't elected by popular vote.
The electors rightfully ignored the popular vote and voted faithfully. Faithless electors flipping the result of the election would have been ruinous.
I'm glad you put democracy in quotes, because America is not a direct democracy and never has been. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.
I don't think Trump is anything. He doesn't really have any political stances beyond what he thinks the current crowd of people around him want to hear, and when it doubt he just says what is in his brain at the time. The closest label would probably be "contrarian". He's only Republican because that's the party he hung his coat on, but he doesn't subscribe to the existing party platform. He takes some very non-libertarian views, especially if those views will get him votes.
Clinton got more votes than Trump. It's the states, not the people who elected Trump, and there's no "pioneering spirit" nonsense that really explains that given states are institutions, not people.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The people are so bought into the cycle of voting for the lesser evil that even with historically polarizing, horrible, and unliked candidates, 3rd parties still barely got 2.5% of the vote...
Well, it didn't help that the third party candidates were even worse. And not just by a little.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
ok, I'll watch more carefully and see if people who call themselves libertarian match that label.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I can't think of any definition of "Libertarian" that matches Trump. What are you thinking there?
His instincts lean towards scrapping onerous, pointless regulations. Towards government more in its constitutionally described role, rather than as Nanny. He's no classical libertarian, of course. But on many topics he skews more that direction than most of his primary race counterparts, and certainly wildly more so than his Democrat opponent.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
His instincts lean towards scrapping onerous, pointless regulations.
Honestly: who favors imposing onerous, pointless regulations?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"He's apparently a corporatocrat"
Until your explanation, I was nodding in agreement--yeah, he does rule like shit (copros/kopros).
Most people pushing for bigger government programs. That skews towards democrats, but there are plenty of republicans with the same magical thinking. They just don't consider them pointless or onerous. They, having never run a business, can't envision the compliance cost, and believe that they will make the world a utopia (ignoring that most people will search for a way around them).
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
One person's "pointless" is another person's "point"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There is only one problem with your argument, and it it's this: Hillary actually DID win the election, so claiming she was too "whatever" to do so flies in the face of reality.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So you have no idea what the popular vote is then ... Got it. (Only an idiot would say she didn't win it, when she clearly did.)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This is the first I heard about this. It is welcomed news. I was concerned the US government was going way over batshit crazy by giving a nobody whose only claim to fame was to run a Nazi website such a powerful position. Now they are still batshit crazy but just a few batshit less.
I think it's more like "I pretend I have more money on the internet therefore I'm right".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Personally, in my view Obama succumb to reality in foreign affairs.
My opinion also. Republican or Democrat, the realpolitik tends to take over. Look at Trump. Lots of things signed, no money to fund them, many dead in water. If it wasn't for the CRA and a dead Supreme Court Justice saved for him from the previous administration, pretty much nothing would have been done in his first 100 days even with both sides of Congress supposedly on his side.
I don't think Trump is anything. He doesn't really have any political stances beyond what he thinks the current crowd of people around him want to hear, and when it doubt he just says what is in his brain at the time. The closest label would probably be "contrarian". He's only Republican because that's the party he hung his coat on, but he doesn't subscribe to the existing party platform. He takes some very non-libertarian views, especially if those views will get him votes.
Trump holds a lot of left-wing positions and a lot of right-wing positions. He's used eminent domain extensively, for example (left-wing) and obviously there are plenty of pictures of him palling around with the Clintons and other liberal politicians. He simply does whatever suits him and pushes him ahead. He also panders to the right incessantly with the "pro-police" garbage and all that.
Do you have ESP?
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
He's apparently a corporatocrat, which makes him just as much of a libertarian as most of the people who call themselves libertarian. Don't like it? Separate yourself from that label to escape the association with all the crypto-corporatocrats hiding among you. Sometimes a label is too tainted and has to be discarded.
I have no idea why you think he's a corporatocrat - that was Hillary Clinton. Libertarianism is at odds with both Clinton and Trump.
Do you have ESP?
Hillary Clinton was barely tolerated by half of the Democrat voters. That's why Hillary lost. Trump was a barely tolerated candidate among Republicans, but not quite weak enough to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. For example, take a look at her first-amendment positions and you'll see someone who is way to the right of center. When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
As a Republican that opted to vote for Kasick in the primaries and Clinton in the prez race, I'd say that any GOP candidate (not just Trump) would have defeated Hillary. And by the same token, any Democrat candidate other than Hillary would have beat the fuck out of Trump's campaign.
These was a fight among unlikeables (sp). With that said, the notion that Trump won because he was a Liberatian in Republican disguise is absolutely ridiculous. The motherfucker was a birther, a goddamned George Wallace who dog whistle the right tunes. Oooooh the Mexicans, oooooh the Muslims, etc, etc.
Trump cemented his popular power way before Hillary was in the picture. The "better than Hillary" slogan came as an afterthought, a revisionist sophistry with which to hide the fact they voted for a fucking Birther bigot.
I know the local mom and pop went out of business because they couldn't afford to put up the "employees must wash hands before returning to work" sign.
in the Trump administration coffin. Let's hope the rest of the clean-up is thorough and comprehensive.
If Bannon can servce on the NSC than any Dick and Jane can do that as well. What qualifications does Bannon have other than making money with fake news and being a former member of the millionaires establishment? You are right: NONE!
Also says a lot about who Trump picks for important positions....like big corp fanboy Gorsuch for SCOTUS.
Really? Explain to me how a successful businessman and former governor who smokes a little recreational weed and has a wacky sense of humor is worse than a corrupt politician who destroys evidence and a reality television star that spouts continual lies and attacks on anyone who questions him?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Oligarch running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Fixed that for you. Trump is as much a libertarian as Margret Thatcher was a communist.
And it is not just surprising that he won, it's shameful and destructive. It also says a lot about those who voted for him that they cant he was an oligarch.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And it's this sort of glib avoidance of just how bad the problem really is that explains why Democrats have been on such a losing streak lately.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
She didn't do anything out of the ordinary, so yeah, they didn't cover it.
Calling Trump a libertarian is probably the funniest thing I've seen all week, so thanks for that.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Gary Johnson was a reasonably well-liked governor who got bipartisan support and could reach across the aisle. He was weak on foreign policy, and wasn't all that charismatic, but I really don't think he was worse than either Hillary or Donald.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
No, that's just silly. He's clearly an authoritarian; he wants power to do what he wants with the government. That's decidedly not libertarianism, and the fact that you don't understand that just means that you aren't paying attention.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
No, she didn't. She won the popular vote. However, our constitutional republic is deliberately set up in a way that gives smaller states a disproportionately large vote to ensure that candidates can't just focus on the needs of the big states, and as a result, Trump won the election because of his claim—ridiculous as it might be—that he would bring back manufacturing jobs to those smaller states.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
So all a country needs to do is try to recruit someone and then they are tainted forever? Doesn't work that way, comrade. If it did, it would be a quick race to the bottom.
The left in the US has two big problems. The first is that about half of the country doesn't understand sarcasm which is the Lefts preferred method of communication. The second is that they are naive and stories like this and Calexit, just show how naive they are.
Really? Explain to me how a successful businessman and former governor who smokes a little recreational weed and has a wacky sense of humor is worse than a corrupt politician who destroys evidence and a reality television star that spouts continual lies and attacks on anyone who questions him?
Because neither of them have any clue what the President does, or had opinions that sounded thought out on any of the major issues. Any time Gary Johnson or Jill Stein were interviewed, they hung themselves and demonstrated so very clearly that they were incapable of the job. Yeah, I hated Hillary and Trump too (and didn't vote for either), and I REALLY wanted to like Johnson or Stein, either one, anything other than those other two, but they were clueless. Utterly clueless.
he realized just how bad of a policy his campaign bashing Bush's war had been
Eh? He was always right to bash the Iraq War and to demand that it come to an end. That's one of the few things I'll really credit him for.
The second Iraq War was the US's greatest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War, if not earlier.
1936 called and they want their facts back. Your obsession with Communism is right out of the Red Scare era, nice to see you are keeping up with current events.
The US Communist Party was finished long, Long, LONG before the "collapse of the Soviet Union", you fool. Just for starters:
- Communist Show Trials;
- Trotsky Assassination;
- Holodomor;
- Stalin purges;
- Great Leap Forward;
- Cultural Revolution;
- Five Year Plans;
- etc.
The "crippling blow" was the utter failure of Communism to deliver on it's promises of a Worker's Paradise. That was clear 80 years ago.
The rest of your screed is just uninformed or obsessive babbling.
The people didn't want Hillary though she won the popular vote?! Every time some idiot brings up the results of the Electoral college when discussing popularity it is a smoke screen. This is no exception.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I think you confuse Iraq and Syria... Iraq actually had a reasonable point and wasn't anyone's patsy, plus they were not fighting amongst themselves... North Vietnam was a China/Russian patsy fighting with South Vietnam.. Syria is a Russian Patsy in the middle of a civil war..
Obama and Clinton got is square in the middle of Syria's civil war.... Vietnam was a Civil war too.. Both where/are proxy wars. Iraq was none of this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You seem to be a clown of some sort. You have some kind of a learning disability. This is not the site for you my friend, please go somewhere else. You make up things people did not say, then argue with yourself. It is very entertaining for us, but it is spam. The post you are replying to is only a couple of lines long, yet you are unable to process what it says.
OP: voting was and is set up this way so the president represents a republic, not the people.
Stupid: so you're saying the people didn't want Hillary though she won the popular vote?! That's wrong!!
Your brain is broken. Put down the weed pipe, go to the doctor and get some time-release meth. It will help you with your grades too.
Hi dgatwood!
Trump was by far the most utterly incompetent person and somehow he is managing the job. Gary Johnson may not have been able to articulate his positions well, but that hardly makes him incapable. He WAS the governor of a state for two terms. It's not the same as being President, but it is executive decision making experience and he did quite well. How much of your view of Johnson's capabilities was formed by the way the media portrayed him vs his actual business and government experience and record?
Stein by the way isn't even in the same category. Her experience was in being a protest organizer which is practically worthless experience, but it seemed to serve Obama well...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
If you exclude the corrupt liberal magnet sanctuary cities, Trump is widely supported.
That's why Hillary lost.
If you exclude the people that did not vote for "A", then "A" is widely supported. This is not very insightful, even if you label those people as "corrupt", or insinuate that the places where people live somehow makes their opinions less valid.