Steve Bannon gives Insight into Trump's Plan for America

I was reading CNN and came across an article and a video that showed Steve Bannon explaining how Trump's mind works. This is an insight into Trump's logic, and it makes it less confusing.

There are three pillars of Trump's plan "I kind of break it up into three verticals of three buckets," Bannon said.

"The first is kind of national security and sovereignty and that's your intelligence, the Defense Department, Homeland Security.

"The second line of work is what I refer to as 'economic nationalism' and that is Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Steven Mnuchin at Treasury, (Robert) Lighthizer at Trade, (National Trade Council head) Peter Navarro, (adviser) Stephen Miller, these people that are rethinking how we're gonna reconstruct our trade arrangements around the world.

"The third, broadly, line of work is what is 'deconstruction' of the administrative state."

This would be why Trump appointed someone who is against the Environmental Protection Agency (Scott Pruitt) and someone who is against public schools (Betsy DeVos) to the head of the Department of Education. There have been bills put forth unto congress to dismantle both departments, although they haven't gained much traction (yet). He also has famously called for two business regulations to be repealed for every new regulation put in place.

Economic nationalism is the idea that we should engage in bilateral trade agreements that benefit the United States and not engage in multi-lateral trade agreements at all. Steve Bannon is a nationalist in other ways as well and talks about America having its own culture. This rhetoric goes at odds with the age-old American stance that we welcome new cultures into our land. The idea of restricting immigrants like Muslims and Mexicans also comes across as keeping not only our borders safe, but our culture as well.

Steve Bannon sees a strong resurgence and a new political order of conservatives rising. The Republicans have control of the House, Senate and White House and they might get the Supreme Court, too! It certainly seems like the stars are aligned. Trump seems to be planning to restructure a whole bunch of government agencies, as well.

CNN: Steve Bannon Outlines his Plan to "Deconstruct" Washington

a reply to: darkbake

The problem with these extreme actions is that the majority of Americans who voted didn't vote for Mr. Trump.

Many who did vote for him have realized that the cuts in government are actually going to affect their lives negatively, rather than taking away from some vague "otthers" that don't deserve it.

a reply to: darkbake

He is not looking to restructure.

He is looking to deconstruct, to break down, to destroy. That is the only potential outcome of what we have seen of his plans so far.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We don't elect a president or run the country based on what people in 2 States want. That's not how it works.

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: Gryphon66

We don't elect a president or run the country based on what people in 2 States want. That's not how it works.

....and we didn't elect a President based on "what people in 2 States" want ... actually it was three ... PA, MI and WI.

The difference in the popular vote totals in these three swing States decided the result in the Electoral College, and that difference was about 107K votes.

I haven't made any argument that Mr. Trump is not our validly elected President under our current system.

What is true is that of all votes cast for President, Mr. Trump only received about 45%.

More Americans voted against Mr. Trump than voted for him.




ETA: I'd like to add a note here. Indeed more people voted against Mr. Trump than voted for him. But the fact remains that 45% of Americans who voted DID VOTE for Mr. Trump.

That is not an insignificant percentage. A fairly decent argument can be made that by voting for Mr. Trump, many Americans wanted ... or perhaps thought they wanted what Mr. Trump was selling.

And, I will be the first to admit, he is using the power of his pen to attempt to fulfill many of his promises.

Rather than demonizing each other, Americans are going to have to come back to the realization that although we may be approximately equally split on issues, this means that neither group is going to get exactly what they want.

Compromise ... it's not a dirty word.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: darkbake

He is not looking to restructure.

He is looking to deconstruct, to break down, to destroy. That is the only potential outcome of what we have seen of his plans so far.

Sort of, he's not trying to destroy anything. He's just trying to deconstruct, as you say, the administrative government. It's to overwhelming for small businesses to thrive and isn't even friendly with corporations paired with our tax plan. Jobs coming back would fix so many things and I just hope his ideas/plans is the remedy to that huge issue.

American small business has some of the most attractive tax benefits in the world, as do our corporations.

"Bringing jobs back" is absurd for the most part.

"Creating new jobs and new professions" would require a more progressive outlook that Mr. Trump or the leaders in Congress seem to have.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

The administrative government being deconstructed is all very well, but not at the expense of public schooling, which WILL suffer under this administration, and not at the expense of other public services without which things can only get MUCH worse for EVERYONE.

The services must remain, but you know they will not, because as long as there are public services, there has to be some kind of management of them. You are looking at a fair degree of probability that schooling will all become private, that families who cannot afford it will not be able to send their children to school, leave alone UNIVERSITY! That is the OPPOSITE of what needs to happen! Education must NOT be a business, businesses should not be involved with it, people SHOULD be able to access the learning they need, simply because they need it, not because they can pay for it. And yet backward, regressive, gutter minded peons that have been elected to office of late, are going to make things precisely and uniformly WORSE by destroying the public system?

Fantastic. Just fantastic.

In case you were wondering, Trumps plans on everything, including whether to poop before or after breakfast, are going to backfire on the nation he has been placed in control of. Its as good as done already.

a reply to: Gryphon66

These are not extreme actions.

These are responses to changes implemented decades ago to which no one was asked either.

Globalisation has been a cancer to western countries who have been seeing their technology being plundered by the asiatic countries and their jobs being trashed by corporations without a nation without a drop of dignity.

Anything or anyone who goes agains this sort of things will have my support. Even Trump, even Hitler, even Stalin.

This is the point we are now. Anything against the corporations who are enslaving us all.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
American small business has some of the most attractive tax benefits in the world, as do our corporations.

"Bringing jobs back" is absurd for the most part.

"Creating new jobs and new professions" would require a more progressive outlook that Mr. Trump or the leaders in Congress seem to have.

New professions such as what? Community organizer? Professional protester? Privilege checker?

a reply to: darkbake

Steve Bannon is a nationalist in other ways as well and talks about America having its own culture. This rhetoric goes at odds with the age-old American stance that we welcome new cultures into our land.

How does America having its own unique culture prevent us from welcoming new cultures into our land?

Nobody in the Trump administration is against people from different cultures coming here, unless their cultures are incompatible with US law and prove to be a threat to the American people.

What's so hard to understand?

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

Wow...

Talk about being part of the problem.

Trump, Hitler, Stalin. These are not the solutions to any problem worth solving. You know what is a serious problem though? The fact that a man who represents nothing if not the corporate America you claim to have a problem with, receiving support from people like yourself. If you were anti-corporate, then you would not be willing to indulge the oligarch in this fashion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Many who did vote for him have realized that the cuts in government are actually going to affect their lives negatively, rather than taking away from some vague "otthers" that don't deserve it.

Could you please elaborate?

What people? What cuts? And how exactly are their lives going to be affected negatively?

a reply to: Gryphon66

....and we didn't elect a President based on "what people in 2 States" want ... actually it was three ... PA, MI and WI.

actually, there were 30 states that trump carried. they just happen to have the most electoral votes.

here from the flagship of clitons liars, clinton news network, and you can count them yourself.
CNN Politics 2016 Election Results

another thing,funny how after all the talk of unfaithful electors, there were more that refused to vote for clinton lol.

Not only did it not happen, but more electors tried to defect from Hillary Clinton Monday than from Trump, by a count of eight to two. Three Democratic electors in Maine, Minnesota, and Colorado tried to vote for candidates other than Clinton. The electors' votes, however, were disallowed because of state rules binding them to the statewide popular vote winner.

Four more electors in Washington state defected from Clinton. Three voted for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American who gained some notoriety for her protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

And in Hawaii, an elector successfully cast a ballot for Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton.

Some of the Democratic electors tried to vote for Sanders, though only the Hawaii vote will remain an official Electoral College tally for the Vermont Senator. Others, including the Powell voters in Washington, were attempting to promote alternate Republican candidates that the House of Representatives could theoretically elect as president instead of Trump.

Donald Trump Secures Electoral College Win, With Few Surprises

a reply to: Gryphon66

I haven't made any argument that Mr. Trump is not our validly elected President under our current system.
What is true is that of all votes cast for President, Mr. Trump only received about 45%.

More Americans voted against Mr. Trump than voted for him.

Even more Americans did not vote against him.

Hillary did indeed get 48% percent of the votes - but remember that another 45% of the American electorate evidently did not vote against him and stayed simply home. Granted, they did not vote for Trump, but however one spin it, they did not vote against him. Whatever Trump said and did, it did not upset those 45% enough to say "no".

I would like to add some numbers to illustrate how - and this is not minded at you - it is ludicrous to say or imply that "America voted for Hillary":

First, only 71% of Americans are able to vote. It is a bit on the low side, but it is what it is. Of those 71% only 55% did vote. So right off the bat, before a single vote is cast, only 39% of Americans is left. Of those 39% 7% voted for someone else than Trump and Hillary. That leaves 36.5%

Of those 36.5% not even half voted for Hillary. To be more precise 48% did

17.5% of Americans voted for Hillary - 82.5% did not.
16,5% of Americans voted for Trump - 83.5% did not.

Anyone claiming that the numbers show that "America voted for Hillary" is out of touch with reality.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: Gryphon66

We don't elect a president or run the country based on what people in 2 States want. That's not how it works.

....and we didn't elect a President based on "what people in 2 States" want ... actually it was three ... PA, MI and WI.

The difference in the popular vote totals in these three swing States decided the result in the Electoral College, and that difference was about 107K votes.

I haven't made any argument that Mr. Trump is not our validly elected President under our current system.

What is true is that of all votes cast for President, Mr. Trump only received about 45%.

More Americans voted against Mr. Trump than voted for him.



ETA: I'd like to add a note here. Indeed more people voted against Mr. Trump than voted for him. But the fact remains that 45% of Americans who voted DID VOTE for Mr. Trump.

That is not an insignificant percentage. A fairly decent argument can be made that by voting for Mr. Trump, many Americans wanted ... or perhaps thought they wanted what Mr. Trump was selling.

And, I will be the first to admit, he is using the power of his pen to attempt to fulfill many of his promises.

Rather than demonizing each other, Americans are going to have to come back to the realization that although we may be approximately equally split on issues, this means that neither group is going to get exactly what they want.

Compromise ... it's not a dirty word.

What's even more telling is that the majority of voters don't support deportation.

And at this point that's exactly what America needs. The system is broken,deconstruction and rebuilding under constitutional laws would be great. Our government has become a scary monster that needs to be put down. We unlike many Countries across the Atlantic, don't necessarily love socialism. Maybe it works for you but many of us aren't really interested. Will Trump do this, who knows, but Hillary was just a 3rd term of Obama a reply to: TrueBrit

a reply to: WUNK22

Well, then you must be for the following things:

The majority of kids unable to attend any formal education, at any stage of their development, which is the only effect that destroying the public education system can have.

Water which cannot be used because it is too full of fossil fuel production by products, which is the only effect that deregulation of the oil industry will have.

Banks which will return to the sort of behaviour which forces them to crash every once in a while, forcing millions of people to live in illegal cities made of tents and recycled garbage, which will be the only end result that deregulation of the banking industry will have.

You must WANT these things, because that is what you are saying you voted for, when you say you voted for this... dross, this batch of ignorant philistines.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, unless you take California out of the mix. Let them secede. The only reason they're the agricultural powerhouse they are is because of crazy subsidies. We can do the same elsewhere. Also, by the way, the Trump wins the popular vote by millions. Not that the popular vote even sorta matters.

a reply to: TrueBrit

No, we're saying the states should take responsibility for these things. Your doom porn scenarios are laughably ridiculous.