With due respect Rita, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I was with Bannon last Friday. He and McM have differences. So did Hamilton and Jefferson. So did Seward and Stanton. It’s in ALL administrations. Schultz and Weinberger differed in Reagan’s administration.
Bannon, Gorka, Pompeo, Sessions (who, yes, is on the NSC) comprise a very powerful lobby, even if Bannon isn’t a voting member. He still attends. They are as powerful, if not more so, than McM. If you want an admin with absolutely no different views, no dissenting voices, you’ll end up with a Third Reich. Bannon doesn’t want that and Trump doesn’t want that.
Trump took ALL our advice (including Bannon’s) to hire McM. Try trusting him.
It is so interesting to read your insights. Have you expressed an opinion on Gorka? It’s ok if you don’t want to, I just thought I’d ask. I have learned a lot from him.
I never heard one word of this explanation before.
Not.one.word.
My question was; 1) about conservatives Breitbart and Sundance differing about McMaster at the NSC; 2) the rejection of Mo Brooks vs the endorsement of Strange; 3) the oddity of both.
Grant it, I have had to catch FR on the fly lately, but if this concise explanation of yours has been posted, I did not see it. Knowledge is power. Wanting a little insight should not be taken as an insult to Trump.
If this fine tutorial of yours is confined to FR, then we’re in trouble. Not everyone out there is a FReeper.
No one at the White House has indicated anything near what you said. No one has reminded the general public, like me, of this scenario that you have just explained in your fine argument. Neither has conservative media made your point that all is just fine on the NSC.
Instead, hair is on fire among conservative media against McMaster. It is causing bewilderment whether anyone likes it or not, for readers learning that a McMaster is firing aides who are Trump defenders and that he is against the Trump agenda. That is all I hear from conservative Trump supporting media.
When someone is out of the insider loop, it is not a crime to be in the dark and therefore wonder why Breitbart is freaked out against McMaster, but Sundance is not. Rather, Sundance questions who is behind ousting him.
No one here or elsewhere has yet posited a thought on that question about Breitbart differing from Sundance. Nor, has anyone posited a thought on the reason for the odd Strange endorsement.
It is not a crime to wonder what the hell the strategy is for rejecting this Mo Brooks guy and for endorsing a McConnell/Establishment backed guy, named Strange.
I suggest the White House follow your lead— that’s what I suggest. Certainly, little ole me is not the only one subjected to the mixed signals we’re seeing, from the signals that we’re NOT hearing from anyone, until now, but you. Not from the WH, either.
Evidently, conservative media (that we all count on) doesn’t know any of your argument either, or surely they would be cooling down the frigging bewilderment they are causing by leaving this important background out of their coverage.
It’s astounding to me why Breitbart has not already tutored us, as you have, on the safety of Trump’s agenda, inside the NSC. Instead, they imply danger is in progress, or at least that McMaster is a rogue. It’s banishing McMaster that is being spread and not what you said.
We should be hearing an explanation on the Strange vs.Brooks endorsement thing. If it doesn’t get out there then isn’t it obvious that the base is differing openly with Trump, in Alabama? Comprende? It seems to be Mo Brooks the people are reportedly supporting, not Strange. It’s Brooks they believe is the Trump supporter, not Strange. It’s Brooks who is reportedly advantaged at 30%, not Strange.
With all due respect, I appreciate your explanation. If I did not want it, in order to pass it on, I wouldn’t have pinged you, in the first place.
With your explanation now in hand, there is no need for us to get defensive with those who don’t know these things and want knowledge and reminders and talking points, concerning who remains to defend Trump and his agenda, on the NSC. I am not talking about the Cabinet, but the NSC.
Accusing an inquirer of lack of trust, and calling my Simple Simon questions “not knowing what you’re talking about” is hurtful. Trump can make a mountain of mistakes and I am not going anywhere. You should know that.
No honest question should be instantly taken as an assault against Trump, or against FR wizards who are able to stay in-the-know, 24/7. We’re all grateful to them, but have a little empathy. We can’t all know everything at the same time.
Thanks, very much, LS.