Trump won’t definitively say he still backs Bannon

He actually has said that there is a war brewing between Islam and Christianity. And it seems like he's actively pushing the agenda - thus a "Muslim ban" instead of something else.

He has also said there are too many Asian CEO's in tech and that a "society is more than just its economy."

Most of his agenda is actually founded in racism.

So you're saying Bannon recognized that most Islamic terrorists actually turned out to be, you know, from Islam and thus, countries that are known to harbor such individuals should face restrictions from free travel to and from the US? Because that's the majority of Americans see/saw it.

I don't know what race war Obama was trying to start. Maybe the one where unarmed blacks didn't want to be shot at by police officers.

You mean the one where unarmed blacks who forcefully resisted police officers were shot? I think that's the same race war where unarmed white people who forcefully resisted were also shot.

You liberals are hilariously deluded.
 
http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/trump-wont-definitively-say-he-still-backs-bannon/


Trump won’t definitively say he still backs Bannon

170411-bannon-trump-feature.jpg



By Michael Goodwin

April 11, 2017 | 8:40pm

Washington’s rumor mill is working overtime on the fate of aide Steve Bannon, who is said to be at the center of the rampant White House in-fighting. When I asked the President Tuesday afternoon if he still has confidence in Bannon, who took over the campaign in mid-August, I did not get a definitive yes.

“I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” Trump said. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.”

He ended by saying, “Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will.”

You have to give credit to Trump to be handling this very well.
Trump seems to be a good judge of character. It would be interesting to find out
what life experiences lead Bannon to his viewpoints.
 
Trump was the one who said muslims should not be in til we can vet them.
Ann Coulter was all over that movement... Brietbart moved toward Trump because of that stand. That was Trumps long before he hired Bannon. If Trump is backing off that... 30 million people won't be voting for his 2nd term who voted for his first. and you can just hand that blue wall back to the democrats.

What the hell are Trumps adviors thinking? We didn't vote for the guy because we liked his personality and his comments about women. We voted for him for Gorsuch.. the elimination of immigration from terror prone countries, standing up to the establishment and ending obamacare. That is how he was going to make american safe and great again.
 
So you're saying Bannon recognized that most Islamic terrorists actually turned out to be, you know, from Islam and thus, countries that are known to harbor such individuals should face restrictions from free travel to and from the US? Because that's the majority of Americans see/saw it.

There was extreme vetting under Obama.

It's likely Trump's second ban will be found unconstitutional because the intent is to ban "Muslims" and not ban "terrorists." It's pretty obvious to any rational person that there is a distinction between a Muslim and a terrorist.
 
There was extreme vetting under Obama.

It's likely Trump's second ban will be found unconstitutional because the intent is to ban "Muslims" and not ban "terrorists." It's pretty obvious to any rational person that there is a distinction between a Muslim and a terrorist.

Sure, if terrorists carried a "terrorist" ID card, you'd be on to something. But they don't. They hide with other members of their country in an effort to sneak in. So the only choices are to let everyone in, risk death and destruction, or restrict entry until better vetting can be done (which was the entire point of the bill).
 
Sure, if terrorists carried a "terrorist" ID card, you'd be on to something. But they don't. They hide with other members of their country in an effort to sneak in. So the only choices are to let everyone in, risk death and destruction, or restrict entry until better vetting can be done (which was the entire point of the bill).

Clearly this is a simplistic way of looking at the world. And the kind of viewpoint Bannon is promoting.

There was extreme vetting under Obama and it was working. There were no terrorist attacks from refugees under Obama.

The USA is not like Europe, just like Europe doesn't need to worry about Mexican's crossing illegally, the USA is unlikely to need to worry about ISIS sending terrorists here who have to wait years to get a refugee visa.
 
Clearly this is a simplistic way of looking at the world. And the kind of viewpoint Bannon is promoting.

There was extreme vetting under Obama and it was working. There were no terrorist attacks from refugees under Obama.

The USA is not like Europe, just like Europe doesn't need to worry about Mexican's crossing illegally, the USA is unlikely to need to worry about ISIS sending terrorists here who have to wait years to get a refugee visa.

There were plenty of terrorist attacks from muslims who self-identified as jihadists. The fact that they weren't refugees isn't at all relevant. Several of these individuals left the US, went to countries which would be banned under this law and came back radicalized.

The fact that the USA is not like Europe doesn't mean it can't be like Europe if we open our doors to anyone and everyone. Europe wasn't like Europe 10 years ago either. Now it is too late for them. It isn't too late for us.
 
Trump was the one who said muslims should not be in til we can vet them.
.


How come he left Muslim nations that his companies does business with off his ban list? Including Saudi Arabia,the country that is a breeding ground for terrorists and where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from?
 
Back
Top