Now down to Kellogg and Yiannopolous, I guess. Bob Crane died too young.
"Retired Vice Adm. Bob Harward and retired Gen. David Petraeus have dropped out of consideration for the critical post, which became vacant with Monday’s firing of Michael Flynn, these people said. Both candidates have cited concerns about staffing and independence, the people said."
Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-keith-kellogg-three-others-in-play-for-national-security-adviser-post-1487342490
About the Russian collusion?
(no message)
(no message)
Never in the history of the poll which dates back to 1945, has a President's approval been lower than 50% in the first month of an administration.
Link: http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-gallup-poll-trump-job-approval-ratings-down-to-38-percent/
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The allegation is of constant contact. The next logical revelations is between whom and when. That should be known already. And if they have intertcepts of some, what was said.
(no message)
confirmation. They also said Flynn didn't discuss sanctions with the Soviet ambassador until they were outed on that lie.
(no message)
He is tanking at a record rate for 28 days in.
Which poll doesn't look like the others? I am impressed by your loyalty to the Don, however.
Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html#polls
Granted, they are polling likely voters. Your polls may be looking at non-voters. Who knows.
[Oh, and loyalty, schmoyalty. I only look loyal to Trump because the attacks on him are so radical and stupid. If they were rational and intelligent, I would be on board.]
Link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb17
Republicans, and have been for many years (by their own admission), which is why they are popular with GOPers. The point is, they are an outlier.
whether you look at the list, or not. Please note, I acknowledge that possibly they could be right, but I don't really think they are.
Honestly, whether you agree with me or not is immaterial. I know that the Don is your guy, and i really do marvel at your willingness to stand by him even in the face of what seems to be plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face evidence that he is way out of his depth, to put it as generously as I can.
Has any president ever before had two national security gurus turn him down for the job of NSA? If you need to know more than that, then I accept it is beyond my powers of persuasion to reach you, IMO.
Let's just both sit back and enjoy the spectacle of this finely tuned machine as it keeps humming along.. while we still can.
Although, I admit that I'm not bothering to inform myself on the details too much. For example, I have no idea if Gary Barnett has withdrawn his name for consideration as National Security Advisor.
All kidding aside, your link is behind the wall at WSJ. Was it an article, or an op ed? Was Patraeus actually offered? Certainly possible, I suppose, but I would be shocked. I can't believe they were even going to consider Patraeus...he has issues with trustworthiness. I assumed they would have told him they weren't interested in his services a while ago, given the nature of Flynn's problem.
I should have realized that the WSJ article would be behind a paywall...I just subscribed the other day...apologies.
But, yes, the article says that Petraeus turned him down, and I was surprised that he would have been offered the job for the reason you cite. i guess the Don didn't have our breadth of knowledge in world affairs & probably didn't know that Petraeus was still on double-secret probation...he is just a big name that Trump had heard of.
The Don has no respect for any of these guys since they are not wealthy and are just losers who have access to a collection of fancy uniforms. He'll probably end up with some stooge like Bolton or Giuliani, unless he gets lucky and this Kellogg guy can't think of a plausible reason to hit the eject button.
Maybe you think this all is no big deal, but I would bet you a nickle that the NATO Joint Chiefs have been burning up the (secure) phone lines to the Pentagon this week to find out WTF is going on after the events of the past week (starting with PM Abe's visit).
But here, in this sub-thread I posted another link...this one to the RCP polling avg. for Trump approval ratings, pertaining to you comment about Rasmussen.. No biggy.
(no message)
(no message)
Obviously there are no battle ground states in an electoral system which gave him the narrow win in these polls.
(no message)
(no message)
I strongly suspect that the polls are still under-reporting his supporters. The Left has succeeded more than they realize in chilling the free speech of people who oppose them.
I thought it would be awhile before people started citing polls again. But, here we are. I guess people will just post whatever supports their position, even if untrustworthy.
(no message)
You make a good point about the electoral college. Makes you wonder why we would even worry about polls that don't count their people the same way as the Electoral College (e.g., count Wyoming poll respondents more than Californial respondents). Because they don't count like the EC, national polls will always mislead, and give the impression that the Democrats are stronger than they are.
(no message)
Link: https://youtu.be/5_H-LY4Jb2M
(no message)
Then, he adopted still another persona, which he kept until his untimely death under mysterious circumstances. An American patriot to the end.
Remember...you didn't hear this from me.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Vince_Foster
They don't want history to remember them as complicit with the fall of the United States of America.