+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Steve Bannon. (/Thread-Steve-Bannon)
RE: Steve Bannon. - Dill - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 08:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well those folks are blind; as he has made many. It's the price you pay for bringing in a Washington outsider. Thing is some folks recognize he is the duly elected POTUS and hope he learns and or corrects his mistakes and thake the good with the bad. Some folks look to condemn him for every misstep he makes in an attempt to get rid of him because they don't like him.
Some folks don't like Trump because his "missteps" are evidence of unprecedented incompetence in a person in charge of the world's most powerful military. And the missteps, if you want to call them that, just keep piling on. What head of state believes Breitbart and Fox News over intelligence professionals? Cutting the state department, firing competent mid-level officials, while sending his unprepared son-in-law on diplomatic missions to the Middle East are not "missteps."
Allies and enemies aren't just laughing this off.
For allies his "missteps" create uncertainty, impairing the US ability to lead responses to crises like those brewing in Syria and N Korea; for enemies his missteps are opportunities.
People still hoping he will correct his behavior are poor judges of character and behavior at this point. Well, long before this point. Random unfocused tweet storms from a leader whom no one can control--serial lying is not big deal when "we" do it.
Recognizing he is "duly elected POTUS" doesn't make any of this right. I didn't bring in an incompetent Washington outsider and I don't see why the whole country has to pay the price because Trumpsters did.
RE: Steve Bannon. - bfine32 - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 10:03 PM)Dill Wrote: 1) Some folks don't like Trump because his "missteps" are evidence of unprecedented incompetence in a person in charge of the world's most powerful military. And the missteps, if you want to call them that, just keep piling on. What head of state believes Breitbart and Fox News over intelligence professionals? Cutting the state department, firing competent mid-level officials, while sending his unprepared son-in-law on diplomatic missions to the Middle East are not "missteps."
2) Allies and enemies aren't just laughing this off.
3) For allies his "missteps" create uncertainty, impairing the US ability to lead responses to crises like those brewing in Syria and N Korea; for enemies his missteps are opportunities.
4) People still hoping he will correct his behavior are poor judges of character and behavior at this point. Well, long before this point. Random unfocused tweet storms from a leader whom no one can control--serial lying is not big deal when "we" do it.
5) Recognizing he is "duly elected POTUS" doesn't make any of this right. I didn't bring in an incompetent Washington outsider and I don't see why the whole country has to pay the price because Trumpsters did.
1) No doubt those folks think they are awesome. I would say someone that has been given their intel for 70 years instead of believing everything"intelligence professionals" might take a day or 2 to adjust.
2) What are they going to do? Be mad?
3) Ironic you bring up his ability to act in Syria. You may want to research the previous administration's Non-missteps.
4) And those that said he had no chance to win were just clueless; but of course they have it figured out now. Of course lying is a big deal, but you may want to have that discussion with Matt.
5) You did bring him in if you are a citizen of the United States and you actually enabled it if you voted for someone other that Clinton. How can we stop you from "having to pay the price"? Be careful; what you ask for may come as a surprise to Breech
RE: Steve Bannon. - Dill - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 08:08 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, you honestly think Rice's appointment was apolitical?!? You think Rice was an apolitical person?!?
And there's more of a smoking gun here, so far, on the Obama administration than anything with respect to collusion between the Trump organization and Russia.
It may not be illegal, but it raises VERY serious questions about ethics and political motivations. Of course, between the IRS shenanigans and wire tapping the AP this is maybe not surprising.
Much ado about nothing....mmmkay
Who wiretapped the AP?
More like smoking GUNS in case of the "Trump organization" as you put.
The national security advisor, the Attorney General, the son-in-law, the "advisor" who was recruited to spy, Manafort, Stone, Erik Prince, etc. The Trump "organization" is a feast for Russian spies.
RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good work ignoring the first part of the post and posing a disingenuous question. It got you one "follow".
The thread is not; however, I am sure it contains links of folks that are. I can find one or 2 for you if you no longer what to be unaware that there are folks trying to remove Trump from office.
I am truly surprised that you are unaware that there are folks trying to remove Trump from office
I addressed the first part. The second part was about tax returns. I wouldn't consider a "few extremist talk[ing] impeachment" the same as an "attempt to get rid of him," either.
So any actual attempts to get rid of him or just bitching about Trump while some ***** about the bitching?
RE: Steve Bannon. - bfine32 - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 10:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I addressed the first part.
So any actual attempts to get rid of him or just bitching about Trump while some ***** about the bitching?
My apologies. I missed the part where you addressed the Congresswoman calling for his impeachment about 2 weeks into his Presidency.
RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 10:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Which candidate got more votes for them than against them?
Of course the entire left is not crazy if a few extremist talk impeachment this early in his Presidency. I was just amazed someone didn't realize there were those that were advocating it.
Actually that post is you in a nutshell and it is not flattering
Of course we should give him a chance. Every time you post that as a jab speaks to your bias.
Melodramatic much?
Again, condemning someone or advocating something is not the same as actually attempting something.
RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) No doubt those folks think they are awesome. I would say someone that has been given their intel for 70 years instead of believing everything"intelligence professionals" might take a day or 2 to adjust.
2) What are they going to do? Be mad?
3) Ironic you bring up his ability to act in Syria. You may want to research the previous administration's Non-missteps.
4) And those that said he had no chance to win were just clueless; but of course they have it figured out now. Of course lying is a big deal, but you may want to have that discussion with Matt.
5) You did bring him in if you are a citizen of the United States and you actually enabled it if you voted for someone other that Clinton. How can we stop you from "having to pay the price"? Be careful; what you ask for may come as a surprise to Breech
An enabler like yourself?
An examples of actual attempts to get rid of him?
RE: Steve Bannon. - bfine32 - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 08:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who has attempted to get rid of him? Did I miss someone questioning his birth certificate, nationality, and eligibility to be president? For years?
(04-05-2017, 11:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Melodramatic much?
Again, condemning someone or advocating something is not the same as actually attempting something.
Out of the mouths of babes.
RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 10:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My apologies. I missed the part where you addressed the Congresswoman calling for his impeachment about 2 weeks into his Presidency.
Oh, the "extremist"? Was that an attempt at impeachment? Like the thread on this message board?
RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 11:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Out of the mouths of babes.
You'll need to explain this one.
RE: Steve Bannon. - bfine32 - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 11:16 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You'll need to explain this one.
Only to you. I'm pretty sure
RE: Steve Bannon. - Dill - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) No doubt those folks think they are awesome. I would say someone that has been given their intel for 70 years instead of believing everything"intelligence professionals" might take a day or 2 to adjust.
2) What are they going to do? Be mad?
3) Ironic you bring up his ability to act in Syria. You may want to research the previous administration's Non-missteps.
4) And those that said he had no chance to win were just clueless; but of course they have it figured out now. Of course lying is a big deal, but you may want to have that discussion with Matt.
5) You did bring him in if you are a citizen of the United States and you actually enabled it if you voted for someone other that Clinton. How can we stop you from "having to pay the price"? Be careful; what you ask for may come as a surprise to Breech
1) So Trump is "adjusting" to intelligence professionals now? That's what you call hampering their investigation into Russia's spying and attack on the US election. All that the sort of "misstep" any beginner or Washington outsider could make?
What would Trump have to do, before you recognized that criticism of him is based upon his own actions/incompetence and not just "them" being awesome? What would appear more than a "misstep"?
2) http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/kfile-rubio-tillerson-syria-attack/
Trumpsters see no use for diplomacy and alliances, so no harm done there. Allies will look to other leaders and reshuffle alliances. Enemies will see the chaos as an opportunity to test and expand--as we see now in Syria and North Korea. Trump will handle N. Korea without China. LOL . . . no, wait. . . . that is not funny at all.
3) Why, what does Fox News say about Obama in Syria? They don't say that he got the US bogged down in a ground war there, do they? Do they say he destroyed US credibility when he got Syria to eliminate its chemical weapons without killing a lot of Syrians? Bad when "they" do it. When Trump does it we don't really need credibility. After all, what can the rest of the world do--"be mad"? Assad got mad--and used Sarin gas on children, right after Trump's secretary of state said the Syrian people would decide Assad's fate.
Putin and Assad know Obama's gone. If, on a random whim, Trump decides to act in Syria, how will his friend Putin react? Will Republicans justify the resulting mess by blaming Obama?
4) Lying is a big deal when "they" do it. And why do you keep bringing up Trump's win as if that were some vindication of judgment? Some pundits did not predict how badly misinformed Americans would respond positively to xenophobia. That doesn't make any of Trump's actions smart or right or good for the country. If Lawrence O'Donnell was wrong, that doesn't make it right that Trump throws the executive branch into chaos at a time when clear policy direction is needed.
5) I did not throw away my vote. And we can stop this country from paying the price by impeaching Trump or applying the 25th Amendment or pressuring him to resign. Which option is most favorable will depend on what opportunities future "missteps" provide.
RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 11:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Only to you. I'm pretty sureeveryoneelsemost got it.
When you're ready to start you're explanation feel free to begin.
RE: Steve Bannon. - GMDino - 04-05-2017
![[Image: 17308751_10156013471490550_4270554612271...e=5960A0A9]](https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17308751_10156013471490550_4270554612271694755_n.jpg?oh=f3d314857f09127d106de06101ce4dbe&oe=5960A0A9)
Clearly just the missteps of a man unprepared for the job he insisted he would be the best at while campaigning for it for four years.
I mean, who knew it could be so hard do something you have never done before?
And just because he lies constantly and gets his information directly from FOX news, well, that's just because he's learning on the job.
Probably why he has surrounded himself with familiar faces that will tell him exactly what he wants to hear all the time. Kind of easy him into the highest seat in the land.
And he'll be fine because he told us he would do everything very easily.
And we'll all be tired of winning.
"Give him a chance." ™
RE: Steve Bannon. - GMDino - 04-05-2017
I mean he's working so hard!
(Other than those times he has to pay himself to stay at his own resorts.)
It's not like he's idly posting random, unfounded questions when he should be working for us!
![[Image: 0317.jpg]](https://s13.postimg.org/h8gyku8on/0317.jpg)
If he was doing *that* there might be room for some criticism that he's not really deserving of a chance because he's not trying very hard.
RE: Steve Bannon. - GMDino - 04-05-2017
Or that he's using the Twitter account of the President of the United States to lash out about any and all criticism directed at him!
If the people of our great country could only see how viciously and inaccurately my administration is covered by certain media! -DJT
— President Trump (@POTUS) March 29, 2017
No, he's keeping that to his personal account!
To complain about the press doing their job in covering what he says and does as President would make him seem childish, immature and small.
That might warrant some criticism.
RE: Steve Bannon. - bfine32 - 04-05-2017
(04-05-2017, 11:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: When you're ready to start you're explanation feel free to begin.
Okey Doke and I must admit I thought you were more astute than this.
You listed things that folks accused Obama of and said at least Trump has not been subject to these true attempts to remove (you listed about 3 but it all pertained to citizenship) and then turn around and say accusations/words are not really attempts to remove someone.
Can I get a non-biased ruling here?
I'm gonna go with no.
RE: Steve Bannon. - GMDino - 04-05-2017
Which is probably why people continue to
The man is earning our trust each and every day with his actions, truth telling, and most transparent administration ever. One that is looking out for the little people by rolling back EPA guidelines, safety record keeping, and other unnecessary regulations that are keeping companies from hiring people for minimum wage and no benefits.
#MAGA indeed!
"Give him a chance!" ™
RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-06-2017
(04-05-2017, 11:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke and I must admit I thought you were more astute than this.
You listed things that folks accused Obama of and said at least Trump has not been subject to these true attempts to remove (you listed about 3 but it all pertained to citizenship) and then turn around and say accusations/words are not really attempts to remove someone.
Can I get a non-biased ruling here?
I'm gonna go with no.
Folks?
RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-06-2017
(04-06-2017, 12:06 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Folks?
And by "folks," of course, you mean Donald Trump.
A quick search reveals a minimum of 46 lawsuits and 23 legislative bills challenging Obama's eligibility.