Posted on 04/07/2017 11:52:11 AM PDT by drewh
Push them both out, why not? It’s all just President Kushner’s window dressing anyway.
Frankly I don’t “expect” all Trumps people to agree....and Trump stated many times he wants all opinions even if they don’t agree with him.
Also it’s unlikely Trump wants just “yes” men....he recognizes there will be differences of opinions and has stated he welcomes them. But in the end it’s his decision and I don’t see Bannon nor Pribus just quitting.....moved around of course...the world moves and Trump is very good at putting people where the job at hand needs to be done.
My thoughts exactly
“Axios” seems to feature prominently in this story.
What are they?
I am not an insider, but I have never even heard of them.
1. Bannon represented the nationalist-populist wave that propelled Trump into office. It was that nationalist-populist wave that influenced Trump's campaign rhetoric to keep America out of foreign entanglements.
2. Bannon's position at the WH abruptly changed over the past week since news of the Syrian chemical attack came out. Because Bannon supported the nationalist-populist view on the issue -- and the fact that the nationalist-populist view did not prevail -- it is pretty obvious that Kushner's globalist bent gained influence and Bannon lost influence.
Drudge links to them, so whoever they are, he considered them reliable. FWIW.
Anonymous source and stupid conclusion.
I don't believe a word of this.
Just more media fake news.
The Hill(ary) is full of crap.
Good. Trump has too many hanger-oners from his political campaign. Time to get serious with a crackerjack team instead of political cronies who are past their expiration date.
Not much. Trump attacked Syria. Neocons would have attacked Syria, too.
If there’s the least amount of truth behind it, I’d be tempted to say that somebody’s mistaking supporting Israel for supporting NeoCons. There’s a pretty big distinction there, among most Trump supporters.
I’ll believe it when Trump says it. His campaign shows he knows when to replace staff and they leave on good terms. They may have been the right people for the first few months but not going forward.
Agree.
These reports have been around a while. Laura Ingraham was discussing this around 9:00 am today and has her own sources inside the WH. Sounds as if the liberals/globalists are gaining influence.
People didn’t vote for Ivanka and her husband.
It’s clear, meaning he has no evidence, it’s just clear.
I helped to “hire” Pres. Trump so that he would fire incompetent people. So he gets a free pass from me if he fires Preibus and Bannon, less than 100 days or not.
Trump said over and over on the campaign that he would take ISIS out because we have no choice. And he objected to Obama pulling out of Iraq. His message was not purely about staying out of foreign entanglements. He was on both sides of that issue. On the Syria issue, he never took a hard stand that I recall. He was pretty neutral and “wait and see” on that one.
Unafraid to say “you’re fired”, I agree with you. Trump is doubtless a quick study and can match goals with people. His goals. His people.
Serve the goals present at the time, understanding the curves that will come, and keep those who can keep up with the changes.
In the swamp, it will be TRUMP holding the vaccum for draining it.
Ryan needs to go, before Bannon, but that’s just my opinion.
Ivanka and Jarret need to keep their head down and show a little humility. This isn’t a style show, but trench warfare. For the pair to be exposed as all hat and virtually no cattle would not be a plus, for Trump.
Bannon probably hasn’t the personality to be up on the Hill, heavy footed, but is likely much better at strategy, and setting up goals for decentralizing the concentration of power in departments which are full of Obama embeds. We know the IRS, the VA, and EPA, etc., need a very heavy footprint, in a hurry.
What is this tenure business in these departments where people can not be fired? I don’t get it. All of them should have tendered resignations and Bannon could help bring in Trump supporters off the street who would do as good a job and not sabotage the president and his agenda.
Hillary Clinton has a lot of free time on her hands. Seeing that Trump has adopted Clinton's mid-east foreign policy, maybe he could bring her on board?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.