monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

If the left/liberal/progressive chunk of the electorate wants to remain relevant, and possibly even start winning at the ballot box, it's got to find its way out of the current PC straitjacket.

Very dangerous and unprecedented. It appears that Trump's foreign and military policy, issues that involve war and peace and the lives of American men and women in the military, will be determined by politics and not the needs of the American people. We do not need an extreme right-wing political operative on the National Security Council. We need smart and experienced people who will do everything possible to protect our country and create a world of peace and justice. Steve Bannon must be removed from the National Security Council.

http://canadafreepress.com/article/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-bribed-republicans-to-influence-election

l
conservativedailypost.com

Could all be "fake news" as far as I know. I haven't seen this in a msn outlet, but I wouldn't put it past them to suppress it, either.

Either way, a good story, I figure.

The problem is that Bannon,who is a political operative, is there at ALL the meetings while people from the Joint Chiefs of Staff are there at only SOME of the meetings. In Trump's White House, political operative Bannon is being better briefed in dealings with Russia than the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Notes:  The Conservative Daily Post is a news and opinion website that is hard to determine if it is satire or real.  If it is real then it is off the charts right wing propaganda and conspiracy. Others have classified this as fake news.

Maybe principles meetings under Trump will be more focused on internal US reforms and less concerned with international conflict.

The White House National Security Council (NSC) is the principal forum used by the President of the United States for consideration of national security and foreign policy matters with senior national security advisors and Cabinet officials and is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Since its inception under Harry S. Truman, the function of the Council has been to advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies.

When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that.

One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in a form of nationalism — and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country. They don’t believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don’t believe in the centralized government in the United States. They’d rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level.....

....[W]e the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s [Putin] talking about as far as traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism — and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.

Having Bannon on the National Security Agency is more important than having a member of the Joint Chiefs? Bannon is Putin's boy, and you're putting him in the Inner Sanctum. Heaven help us all

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Trump had a specific and frequently discussed policy regarding Mexico, so it is perfectly possible that someone with a family connection with Mexico would have a different position than someone without a connection to Mexico.

What family connection with Mexico, Brandon? Are you talking about his ethnicity?

Obviously. If Trump had had a widely circulated policy about the state of Georgia, people from Georgia might have some feeling about him that people from other states wouldn't. This is obvious.

You're saying it's obvious that people of a certain ethnicity will hold certain opinions.

That right?

Not even close. Are you even reading my posts? My assertion is that if a public figure has a policy regarding some category of people, then it is possible that someone in that category might have a reaction.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if schisms form in the Republicans' unified government