In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I don't even think Trump is even claculating. If Satan said something good about him, Satan would be a great guy. The US politics are essentially driven by the desperate need to be praised by an insecure emotionally unstable toddler.
On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 16 2017 06:23 Danglars wrote:
Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics.
Let's play that game again:
"Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too."
Oh yeah, that works!
Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill.
Gne what?
I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms.
You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow.
But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview.
On August 16 2017 19:08 Reaps wrote: After reading this thread for the past few days, i have never seen such a huge amount of double standards on TL politics before, my god.
Thank you to Falling and a handful of others for putting some much needed common sense into the thread, but i'm afraid your attempts to reason with the majority of the people itt is most likely futile.
Take it to website feedback instead of leaving throwaway comments in a thread you do not contribute to.
I don't feel that strongly about it, but as it stands I don't even know who is being accused of double standards in that post.
Presumably, everyone who thinks the "both sides" angle is a crock of shit.
The funny thing is that I understand the "both sides" points. I have a brother who I used to fight with growing up to the point that I once threw a butter knife at him. I've worked as a house parent for DSS kids. I have no doubt that there were people inciting violence on both sides and it spiraled into mob mentality quickly. I have no doubt that there were "innocent bystanders" on both sides. I also have no doubt we're talking about a group that is willing to aggressively confront (in the least) nazis and nazis. It's pretty hard to justify siding in any way with nazis or those who choose to associate with them. I was raised at Bob Jones. I can differentiate between Liberal Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, and extremist terrorist Christians. The first two group are not okay with the third. In the same way, there are Liberal Muslims, Fundamentalist Muslims, and extremist terrorist Muslims. AFAIK, the first two groups again are not okay with the third. But in this case, these history revisionist "Southern Heritage Saviors" don't seem to want to separate themselves from the Nazis but equally don't want to be lumped in with them. It's not really how things work.
Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics.
Let's play that game again:
"Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too."
Oh yeah, that works!
Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill.
Gne what?
I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms.
You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow.
But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview.
No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob.
Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics.
Let's play that game again:
"Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too."
Oh yeah, that works!
Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill.
Gne what?
I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms.
You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow.
But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview.
Everything about this criticism is terrible. The statues being removed were put up the the peek of the Jim Crow era as a reminder to blacks who was in power. Only discussing who the statue is of is an international effort to avoid the broader context of why the statue was put in place.
On August 16 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote: [quote] That is not the reports I am hearing. From all reports, it is hard to tell who started anything, but the alt-right group was hyper aggressive and screaming racial slurs as passing blacks. I do know which side murdered someone and hit 19 people with a car.
I have absolutely no opinion on the removal of the stupid statue, really. And I also do not identify with the protestors in pretty much any way. But claiming that the counter protestors were peaceful is simply very untrue, that is all. They came with bats, some wearing combat gear. Of course the horrific terror attack overshadows everything. But still, claiming that Antifa and certain other groups were peaceful is frightenly dishonest. They came for violence.
You should have an opinion on removing said statue not for what it represents but censoring history is wrong. USA is suffering from heavy partisanship from the left as democrats in power that are guilty of their history want to censor it. If you remove history its bound to repeat itself, is that what you all want? Trumps winning of the election, the formation of the alt right are all because of this PC, partisanship nonsense and its all due to Obama sparking the division. Appeasement never works and thats all Obama ever did was appease terrorist orgs and people because it calmed their hurt feelings. I even heard he invited the man who dead cops from BLM(another terrorist org) into the white house. History is grotesque and we should never forget it, if you dont like it LEAVE THE USA. We arent china, we dont censor to appease the power and feelings of the capitalist communist collective. Get a grip on reality people. USA is a constitutional republic never forget it.
I taught US history. They can remove that statue, we won't forget Lee. He also isn't really worth all the celebration compared to other US historical figures. Plus, that statue was put up in the Jim Crow era, when the south was super nice to blacks, so it can be removed and given proper context in a museum.
Then lets have proper discourse and not allow protests to turn violent. You have to admit partisan politicians are guilty of this whether right or left. Theres no excuse to order the police to stand down and cause people to die to make political statement. Also the next day a statue remembering the dead confederate soldiers was torn, yes torn down and again the police did nothing.
When will when the law crack down on these thugs? People want a civil war?
The proper discourse was happening. The problem was that the remove side was winning. So the out of town nazi/kkk group showed up to do what Nazi skin heads and the KKK have always done. They don't like it when democracy doesn't go their way. That is why the civil war happened. The anti slavery party took power.
And the people who took down that statue were arrested.
Yeah but its their right to do so. And the left says worse in media outlets and does worse with their hired radical goon squads. And im aware if the right was in power it would be opposite land. As for the civil war i can say with absolute certainty the cause of the war was not about slavery. All wars are bankers wars and it was about the north taxing the south which infringes upon their states rights. The untied states itself would never revolted if not for such a high tax on the colonies. So I know slavery is a subject that makes people feel horrible but there is a bigger picture here.
The civil war was 110% about slavery. The people involved all said so at the time.
People can say and believe what they want but all wars are bankers wars.
We've been needing this perspective to balance GH's (and more recently Wulfey's) for a while now. Our thread American right of the aisle representation has been lacking the equivalent flavor of crazy.
Awww, you miss Testie! Cute!
And this guy also got banned shortly after. How come they keep getting banned? Typical TL bias?
On August 16 2017 19:08 Reaps wrote: After reading this thread for the past few days, i have never seen such a huge amount of double standards on TL politics before, my god.
Thank you to Falling and a handful of others for putting some much needed common sense into the thread, but i'm afraid your attempts to reason with the majority of the people itt is most likely futile.
Take it to website feedback instead of leaving throwaway comments in a thread you do not contribute to.
I don't feel that strongly about it, but as it stands I don't even know who is being accused of double standards in that post.
Presumably, everyone who thinks the "both sides" angle is a crock of shit.
The funny thing is that I understand the "both sides" points. I have a brother who I used to fight with growing up to the point that I once threw a butter knife at him. I've worked as a house parent for DSS kids. I have no doubt that there were people inciting violence on both sides and it spiraled into mob mentality quickly. I have no doubt that there were "innocent bystanders" on both sides. I also have no doubt we're talking about a group that is willing to aggressively confront (in the least) nazis and nazis. It's pretty hard to justify siding in any way with nazis or those who choose to associate with them. I was raised at Bob Jones. I can differentiate between Liberal Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, and extremist terrorist Christians. The first two group are not okay with the third. In the same way, there are Liberal Muslims, Fundamentalist Muslims, and extremist terrorist Muslims. AFAIK, the first two groups again are not okay with the third. But in this case, these history revisionist "Southern Heritage Saviors" don't seem to want to separate themselves from the Nazis but equally don't want to be lumped in with them. It's not really how things work.
Well that's the rub, isn't it; in context, a discussion of the violence on the left is definitely something people should discuss. I literally grew up alongside kids that would go on to be black bandana wearing anarchists who started a failed collective in Toledo, so this isn't exactly a foreign topic to me. Nonetheless and as you've pointed out, context matters and here, draws toward the middle with "both sides" language following an act of violence incontrovertibly tied up with people waving the symbols of men like Reinhard Heydrich are out of place. Thus, those looking to indict the actions of the people who haven't recently run over someone in the streets are going to need to pay more lip service to the swastikas first, and those who invert that order seem to be missing the point.
On August 16 2017 19:08 Reaps wrote: After reading this thread for the past few days, i have never seen such a huge amount of double standards on TL politics before, my god.
Thank you to Falling and a handful of others for putting some much needed common sense into the thread, but i'm afraid your attempts to reason with the majority of the people itt is most likely futile.
Take it to website feedback instead of leaving throwaway comments in a thread you do not contribute to.
I don't feel that strongly about it, but as it stands I don't even know who is being accused of double standards in that post.
Presumably, everyone who thinks the "both sides" angle is a crock of shit.
The funny thing is that I understand the "both sides" points. I have a brother who I used to fight with growing up to the point that I once threw a butter knife at him. I've worked as a house parent for DSS kids. I have no doubt that there were people inciting violence on both sides and it spiraled into mob mentality quickly. I have no doubt that there were "innocent bystanders" on both sides. I also have no doubt we're talking about a group that is willing to aggressively confront (in the least) nazis and nazis. It's pretty hard to justify siding in any way with nazis or those who choose to associate with them. I was raised at Bob Jones. I can differentiate between Liberal Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, and extremist terrorist Christians. The first two group are not okay with the third. In the same way, there are Liberal Muslims, Fundamentalist Muslims, and extremist terrorist Muslims. AFAIK, the first two groups again are not okay with the third. But in this case, these history revisionist "Southern Heritage Saviors" don't seem to want to separate themselves from the Nazis but equally don't want to be lumped in with them. It's not really how things work.
At some point you stop being an innocent bystander, where exactly that point lies differs from situation to situation.
But imo a clear 'well past' point is when your marching next to people with swastika's.
On August 16 2017 19:08 Reaps wrote: After reading this thread for the past few days, i have never seen such a huge amount of double standards on TL politics before, my god.
Thank you to Falling and a handful of others for putting some much needed common sense into the thread, but i'm afraid your attempts to reason with the majority of the people itt is most likely futile.
Take it to website feedback instead of leaving throwaway comments in a thread you do not contribute to.
I don't feel that strongly about it, but as it stands I don't even know who is being accused of double standards in that post.
Presumably, everyone who thinks the "both sides" angle is a crock of shit.
The funny thing is that I understand the "both sides" points. I have a brother who I used to fight with growing up to the point that I once threw a butter knife at him. I've worked as a house parent for DSS kids. I have no doubt that there were people inciting violence on both sides and it spiraled into mob mentality quickly. I have no doubt that there were "innocent bystanders" on both sides. I also have no doubt we're talking about a group that is willing to aggressively confront (in the least) nazis and nazis. It's pretty hard to justify siding in any way with nazis or those who choose to associate with them. I was raised at Bob Jones. I can differentiate between Liberal Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, and extremist terrorist Christians. The first two group are not okay with the third. In the same way, there are Liberal Muslims, Fundamentalist Muslims, and extremist terrorist Muslims. AFAIK, the first two groups again are not okay with the third. But in this case, these history revisionist "Southern Heritage Saviors" don't seem to want to separate themselves from the Nazis but equally don't want to be lumped in with them. It's not really how things work.
At some point you stop being an innocent bystander, where exactly that point lies differs from situation to situation.
But imo a clear 'well past' point is when your marching next to people with swastika's.
The real kicker for me is that the Nazis love Trump for his "fake news" schpiels while they carry around Indian symbols lamenting the loss of a fictional race.
On August 16 2017 19:08 Reaps wrote: After reading this thread for the past few days, i have never seen such a huge amount of double standards on TL politics before, my god.
Thank you to Falling and a handful of others for putting some much needed common sense into the thread, but i'm afraid your attempts to reason with the majority of the people itt is most likely futile.
Take it to website feedback instead of leaving throwaway comments in a thread you do not contribute to.
I don't feel that strongly about it, but as it stands I don't even know who is being accused of double standards in that post.
Presumably, everyone who thinks the "both sides" angle is a crock of shit.
The funny thing is that I understand the "both sides" points. I have a brother who I used to fight with growing up to the point that I once threw a butter knife at him. I've worked as a house parent for DSS kids. I have no doubt that there were people inciting violence on both sides and it spiraled into mob mentality quickly. I have no doubt that there were "innocent bystanders" on both sides. I also have no doubt we're talking about a group that is willing to aggressively confront (in the least) nazis and nazis. It's pretty hard to justify siding in any way with nazis or those who choose to associate with them. I was raised at Bob Jones. I can differentiate between Liberal Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, and extremist terrorist Christians. The first two group are not okay with the third. In the same way, there are Liberal Muslims, Fundamentalist Muslims, and extremist terrorist Muslims. AFAIK, the first two groups again are not okay with the third. But in this case, these history revisionist "Southern Heritage Saviors" don't seem to want to separate themselves from the Nazis but equally don't want to be lumped in with them. It's not really how things work.
At some point you stop being an innocent bystander, where exactly that point lies differs from situation to situation.
But imo a clear 'well past' point is when your marching next to people with swastika's.
The real kicker for me is that the Nazis love Trump for his "fake news" schpiels while they carry around Indian symbols lamenting the loss of a fictional race.
Regardless of how important or not, the Nazi swastika is different to the asian sign for temple. Notably, it's tilted 45 degrees.
Well at least that is confirmed. Facebook needs to be regulated like a media company, rather than profiteering on our election system. And I don't care about free speech, Facebook does everything in its power to convince people they don't have their finger on the scale. But there is no scale, they just decide was some people see.
A tweet by Barack Obama condemning racism in the aftermath of a far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, has become the most liked tweet ever, with more than 3 million social media users so far endorsing the sentiment.
The tweet, quoting the late South African president Nelson Mandela, read: “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion.”
The former US president followed the tweet with more from Mandela’s autobiographical Long Walk to Freedom: “People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love.
“For love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
Each has had more than a million likes, and hundreds of thousands of retweets.
Far-right protesters opposing the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee from Emancipation Park rallied in Charlottesville on Saturday. Many waved burning torches and wore Nazi or other white supremacist regalia. They were met with counter-protests from antifascist campaigners, who were targeted by a man who drove a car into a group, killing civil rights activist Heather Heyer and injuring several more.
James Fields – who was was photographed earlier on Saturday standing with the neo-Nazi group Vanguard America – has been charged with a number of offences, including murder and malicious wounding.
In the wake of Heyer’s death, many in the US and across the world criticised a terse response from President Donald Trump on Twitter, followed by a press conference in which he failed to condemn white supremacists.
A day later, Trump did explicitly denounce “the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups”, but his words were undermined within hours when he staged an extraordinary press conference, in which he blamed violence “on many sides” and insisted that some of those at the Unite the Right rally were “very fine people”.
Many on social media pointed out the difference in tone between US presidents 44 and 45.
Six of the 10 most liked tweets of all time are by Obama, from his personal @BarackObama account and as @POTUS44.
The number of likes for Obama’s tweet has now passed the 2.7 million for singer Ariana Grande’s message in the wake of the bombing of Manchester Arena, where she had been performing. Twenty-two people were killed in the terrorist attack in May.
On August 16 2017 13:23 m4ini wrote: Link i just posted shows the entire situation where he accelerated.
Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy.
You can also see clearly from the car backing up that there was no one before the crowd, no bats, no whatever else is being peddled as a dumb excuse. The street is empty except for the crowd ahead.
He also rammed into additional cars that were in the crowd making it doubly obvious he wasn't trying to get through the crowd.
There were guys with bats that charged his car after he hit people, but that's besides the point.
Because when a violent racist runs 20 people down with his car, you just let him do it. Seriously, why the fuck would you point that out?
No no no. You're doing it wrong! You're supposed to be armed with a gun to shoot brown terrorists and highschool shooters. You are obviously not supposed to use a baseball bat to protect yourself and fellow citizens from car-driving neonazis! They are peacefully racing into a crowd of people trying to find their way to the freeway. Don't you understand that?!
On August 16 2017 19:08 Reaps wrote: After reading this thread for the past few days, i have never seen such a huge amount of double standards on TL politics before, my god.
Thank you to Falling and a handful of others for putting some much needed common sense into the thread, but i'm afraid your attempts to reason with the majority of the people itt is most likely futile.
Take it to website feedback instead of leaving throwaway comments in a thread you do not contribute to.
I don't feel that strongly about it, but as it stands I don't even know who is being accused of double standards in that post.
Presumably, everyone who thinks the "both sides" angle is a crock of shit.
The funny thing is that I understand the "both sides" points. I have a brother who I used to fight with growing up to the point that I once threw a butter knife at him. I've worked as a house parent for DSS kids. I have no doubt that there were people inciting violence on both sides and it spiraled into mob mentality quickly. I have no doubt that there were "innocent bystanders" on both sides. I also have no doubt we're talking about a group that is willing to aggressively confront (in the least) nazis and nazis. It's pretty hard to justify siding in any way with nazis or those who choose to associate with them. I was raised at Bob Jones. I can differentiate between Liberal Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, and extremist terrorist Christians. The first two group are not okay with the third. In the same way, there are Liberal Muslims, Fundamentalist Muslims, and extremist terrorist Muslims. AFAIK, the first two groups again are not okay with the third. But in this case, these history revisionist "Southern Heritage Saviors" don't seem to want to separate themselves from the Nazis but equally don't want to be lumped in with them. It's not really how things work.
At some point you stop being an innocent bystander, where exactly that point lies differs from situation to situation.
But imo a clear 'well past' point is when your marching next to people with swastika's.
The real kicker for me is that the Nazis love Trump for his "fake news" schpiels while they carry around Indian symbols lamenting the loss of a fictional race.
Regardless of how important or not, the Nazi swastika is different to the asian sign for temple. Notably, it's tilted 45 degrees.
Religious iconography is often stolen and altered over time. Additionally, their meanings change over time as culture changes them. But come on let's be realistic. That's like saying if I made WacDonalds and inverted the iconic McDonald's Golden Arches for the sign, that my big gold W is something different.
On August 16 2017 19:08 Reaps wrote: After reading this thread for the past few days, i have never seen such a huge amount of double standards on TL politics before, my god.
Thank you to Falling and a handful of others for putting some much needed common sense into the thread, but i'm afraid your attempts to reason with the majority of the people itt is most likely futile.
Take it to website feedback instead of leaving throwaway comments in a thread you do not contribute to.
I don't feel that strongly about it, but as it stands I don't even know who is being accused of double standards in that post.
Presumably, everyone who thinks the "both sides" angle is a crock of shit.
The funny thing is that I understand the "both sides" points. I have a brother who I used to fight with growing up to the point that I once threw a butter knife at him. I've worked as a house parent for DSS kids. I have no doubt that there were people inciting violence on both sides and it spiraled into mob mentality quickly. I have no doubt that there were "innocent bystanders" on both sides. I also have no doubt we're talking about a group that is willing to aggressively confront (in the least) nazis and nazis. It's pretty hard to justify siding in any way with nazis or those who choose to associate with them. I was raised at Bob Jones. I can differentiate between Liberal Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, and extremist terrorist Christians. The first two group are not okay with the third. In the same way, there are Liberal Muslims, Fundamentalist Muslims, and extremist terrorist Muslims. AFAIK, the first two groups again are not okay with the third. But in this case, these history revisionist "Southern Heritage Saviors" don't seem to want to separate themselves from the Nazis but equally don't want to be lumped in with them. It's not really how things work.
At some point you stop being an innocent bystander, where exactly that point lies differs from situation to situation.
But imo a clear 'well past' point is when your marching next to people with swastika's.
The real kicker for me is that the Nazis love Trump for his "fake news" schpiels while they carry around Indian symbols lamenting the loss of a fictional race.
Regardless of how important or not, the Nazi swastika is different to the asian sign for temple. Notably, it's tilted 45 degrees.
Religious iconography is often stolen and altered over time. Additionally, their meanings change over time as culture changes them. But come on let's be realistic. That's like saying if I made WacDonalds and inverted the iconic McDonald's Golden Arches for the sign, that my big gold W is something different.
I don't really see the problem as long as there's context for that though. Example, in this case japanese and not indian so it is also mirrored and not just 45° rotation. But if you open a map on google maps or whereever else it still looks something like this (sry, german interface and as such german names for places etc. but that's besides the point):
I'm fairly sure they've decided to phase out the symbol on maps for the upcomming olympics in an attempt to not freak out tourists though.
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - For months, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser and his chief strategist have battled for influence behind the scenes, and their feud may force another shake-up at the White House.
The dispute between Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and political strategist Stephen Bannon has reached a level of animosity that is destabilizing Trump's team of top advisers just as the administration tries to regain lost momentum, three senior officials said.
Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.
Whatever Trump decides could chart the fate of a nuclear-weapons deal with Iran, U.S. troop deployments to Afghanistan and White House staffing decisions - all issues over which Bannon and McMaster have sparred.
Bannon has been in a precarious position before but Trump has opted to keep him, in part because his chief strategist played a major role in his election victory and is backed by many of the president's most loyal rank-and-file supporters.
"The president obviously is very nervous and afraid of firing him," a source close to the White House told Reuters.
The source floated the possibility that Bannon could be demoted instead of fired, noting that he might turn into a harsh critic of the administration if he is forced out of the inner circle.
Two other senior officials, both supporters of McMaster who asked not to be identified, said he blames Bannon for a series of attacks against him by right-wing website Breitbart News, which Bannon used to lead, and other far-right conservative groups.
In recent weeks, Breitbart has published a series of articles making a case for McMaster's ouster on the basis that he is not a strong ally of Israel and that he has staffed the National Security Council with holdovers from the Obama administration.
One of the senior officials said McMaster’s anger over the campaign “is known to the president” but declined to say whether the national security adviser had told Trump directly or through General John Kelly, an ally and the president's new chief of staff.
"McMaster isn't saying Bannon is the mastermind behind the campaign, but he does think Bannon could stop it if he wanted to,” said one of McMaster's defenders.
In a television interview on Sunday, McMaster repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he could work with Bannon.
About their feud, Bannon declined to comment and McMaster was unavailable for comment.
Instead of firing Bannon, Trump could move McMaster into a position outside the White House, possibly back to an active military command role, or keep both men where they are and insist on some form of truce.
Bannon has survived other White House power struggles this year and established a detente with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner after a scolding from the president.
The two senior officials who support McMaster said Kelly is angry that the anti-McMaster campaign has made the White House appear chaotic, reflecting badly on him as he was brought in as chief of staff two weeks ago to restore order and discipline.
Bannon sees himself as the defender of Trump's nationalist base and has advocated for both an end or renegotiation of trade deals and a more isolationist approach to foreign affairs than McMaster.
He has pushed to scrap the 2015 nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran, which McMaster argues should remain in place, and has also proposed using contractors to fight the war in Afghanistan rather than expanding U.S. forces there, as McMaster has advocated.
McMaster is part of a more pragmatic group that Bannon likes to label "globalists."
He drew the fury of Bannon's supporters by recently overhauling the White House's National Security Council, pushing out four staffers who were seen as close to Bannon.
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - For months, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser and his chief strategist have battled for influence behind the scenes, and their feud may force another shake-up at the White House.
The dispute between Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and political strategist Stephen Bannon has reached a level of animosity that is destabilizing Trump's team of top advisers just as the administration tries to regain lost momentum, three senior officials said.
Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.
Whatever Trump decides could chart the fate of a nuclear-weapons deal with Iran, U.S. troop deployments to Afghanistan and White House staffing decisions - all issues over which Bannon and McMaster have sparred.
Bannon has been in a precarious position before but Trump has opted to keep him, in part because his chief strategist played a major role in his election victory and is backed by many of the president's most loyal rank-and-file supporters.
"The president obviously is very nervous and afraid of firing him," a source close to the White House told Reuters.
The source floated the possibility that Bannon could be demoted instead of fired, noting that he might turn into a harsh critic of the administration if he is forced out of the inner circle.
Two other senior officials, both supporters of McMaster who asked not to be identified, said he blames Bannon for a series of attacks against him by right-wing website Breitbart News, which Bannon used to lead, and other far-right conservative groups.
In recent weeks, Breitbart has published a series of articles making a case for McMaster's ouster on the basis that he is not a strong ally of Israel and that he has staffed the National Security Council with holdovers from the Obama administration.
One of the senior officials said McMaster’s anger over the campaign “is known to the president” but declined to say whether the national security adviser had told Trump directly or through General John Kelly, an ally and the president's new chief of staff.
"McMaster isn't saying Bannon is the mastermind behind the campaign, but he does think Bannon could stop it if he wanted to,” said one of McMaster's defenders.
In a television interview on Sunday, McMaster repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he could work with Bannon.
About their feud, Bannon declined to comment and McMaster was unavailable for comment.
Instead of firing Bannon, Trump could move McMaster into a position outside the White House, possibly back to an active military command role, or keep both men where they are and insist on some form of truce.
Bannon has survived other White House power struggles this year and established a detente with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner after a scolding from the president.
The two senior officials who support McMaster said Kelly is angry that the anti-McMaster campaign has made the White House appear chaotic, reflecting badly on him as he was brought in as chief of staff two weeks ago to restore order and discipline.
Bannon sees himself as the defender of Trump's nationalist base and has advocated for both an end or renegotiation of trade deals and a more isolationist approach to foreign affairs than McMaster.
He has pushed to scrap the 2015 nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran, which McMaster argues should remain in place, and has also proposed using contractors to fight the war in Afghanistan rather than expanding U.S. forces there, as McMaster has advocated.
McMaster is part of a more pragmatic group that Bannon likes to label "globalists."
He drew the fury of Bannon's supporters by recently overhauling the White House's National Security Council, pushing out four staffers who were seen as close to Bannon.
Every time i read something like this, it sinks in another time that we just made it through less than 200 days. Not even a quarter done. There's so much shit going on it feels like he's the president for 29 years already.
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - For months, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser and his chief strategist have battled for influence behind the scenes, and their feud may force another shake-up at the White House.
The dispute between Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and political strategist Stephen Bannon has reached a level of animosity that is destabilizing Trump's team of top advisers just as the administration tries to regain lost momentum, three senior officials said.
Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.
Whatever Trump decides could chart the fate of a nuclear-weapons deal with Iran, U.S. troop deployments to Afghanistan and White House staffing decisions - all issues over which Bannon and McMaster have sparred.
Bannon has been in a precarious position before but Trump has opted to keep him, in part because his chief strategist played a major role in his election victory and is backed by many of the president's most loyal rank-and-file supporters.
"The president obviously is very nervous and afraid of firing him," a source close to the White House told Reuters.
The source floated the possibility that Bannon could be demoted instead of fired, noting that he might turn into a harsh critic of the administration if he is forced out of the inner circle.
Two other senior officials, both supporters of McMaster who asked not to be identified, said he blames Bannon for a series of attacks against him by right-wing website Breitbart News, which Bannon used to lead, and other far-right conservative groups.
In recent weeks, Breitbart has published a series of articles making a case for McMaster's ouster on the basis that he is not a strong ally of Israel and that he has staffed the National Security Council with holdovers from the Obama administration.
One of the senior officials said McMaster’s anger over the campaign “is known to the president” but declined to say whether the national security adviser had told Trump directly or through General John Kelly, an ally and the president's new chief of staff.
"McMaster isn't saying Bannon is the mastermind behind the campaign, but he does think Bannon could stop it if he wanted to,” said one of McMaster's defenders.
In a television interview on Sunday, McMaster repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he could work with Bannon.
About their feud, Bannon declined to comment and McMaster was unavailable for comment.
Instead of firing Bannon, Trump could move McMaster into a position outside the White House, possibly back to an active military command role, or keep both men where they are and insist on some form of truce.
Bannon has survived other White House power struggles this year and established a detente with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner after a scolding from the president.
The two senior officials who support McMaster said Kelly is angry that the anti-McMaster campaign has made the White House appear chaotic, reflecting badly on him as he was brought in as chief of staff two weeks ago to restore order and discipline.
Bannon sees himself as the defender of Trump's nationalist base and has advocated for both an end or renegotiation of trade deals and a more isolationist approach to foreign affairs than McMaster.
He has pushed to scrap the 2015 nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran, which McMaster argues should remain in place, and has also proposed using contractors to fight the war in Afghanistan rather than expanding U.S. forces there, as McMaster has advocated.
McMaster is part of a more pragmatic group that Bannon likes to label "globalists."
He drew the fury of Bannon's supporters by recently overhauling the White House's National Security Council, pushing out four staffers who were seen as close to Bannon.
Every time i read something like this, it sinks in another time that we just made it through less than 200 days. Not even a quarter done. There's so much shit going on it feels like he's the president for 29 years already.
Same. I wonder how long we can go with so many vacancies and more being vacated day by day. Before long, it'll be one intern running around doing all of the work.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1qHc9cl.png)
