Everything you didn't want to know about Trump and were not afraid to ask

[Svartalf]

You :ean in a water obstacle in one of his own golf courses?

[Animavore]

I've heard people talk about taking weed killer to Trump's golf course.

Fuck that. Why stoop to his pathetic, environmentally destructive ways? If I could, if it could be something that could be done overnight, he'd wake up tomorrow with a forest on top of it.

[Svartalf]

He doesn't need killing, nobody less than him needs to be made a martyr

[Animavore]

Wut? No one's talking about killing him. Fuck that. I don't want to be still hearing about him in 30 years from conspiracy theorists.

[Svartalf]

His getting elected in the first place is the stuff of conspiracy theories

[Animavore]

[Seabass]

Is this officially weirder than Watergate now?

Dude, we passed watergate a long time ago.

[Forty Two]

This whole Trump episode feels like a bad episode of Twilight Zone.

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opin ... tance.html

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

continued here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opin ... tance.html

This New York Times anonymous Op Ed is really odd. I guess it's hard to argue that the "deep state" is a conspiracy theory. If there is a team of people in the administration itself - "senior officials" - what, exactly, is a "senior official" as that term is used in the article? Cabinet member? One level below cabinet? Deputy director of a department? How high is "senior"?

Now, the article is interesting in its lack of specificity. He works for the administration, but he and "like minded" others in the administration have "vowed" to "thwart" parts of his agenda (i.e. unelected bureaucrats are taking it upon themselves to thwart executive policy and action by the elected leader with the constitutional authority to create that agenda), and they are looking to thwart his "worst inclinations." However, the writer does not specify what Trump is inclined to do that they have thwarted. Not one example.

This senior official wants the WH to succeed, and he says he believes that MANY of the things done have had great success. Which things, he does not lay out - not even a two or three sentence summation of the best examples.

His first duty is to the country, he says, and "...the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic." How so? Has he exceeded his constitutional authority? Has he coopted a judicial or legislative power that does not fall on the executive? Has he adopted a policy or practice in the White House that is illegal? Has he taken action which changes the character of our representative government or elections? Or, has he just ated in a manner that this particular official vehemently disagrees? What, exactly, has Trump done which this writer says is detrimental to the health of the republic? He provides not a single example.

So, this person and others have vowed to do what they can to "preserve democratic institutions," and thwart (again that word) Trump's misguided impulses. So, Mr. Anonymous, what have you done which served to "preserve democratic institutions?" What has Trump done which injured or threatened to injure DEMOCRATIC institutions? What misguided impulses has Mr. Anonymous thwarted? What did he try to do on impulse which, whew!, Mr. Anonymous and his crew of patriotic resisters stopped? Surely there is something? Not put in the op-ed. But I assume there must be something, no?

Next - the root of the problem - he's "amoral." No "first principles." Well, fine, you want someone to be based in Christian or "JudeoChristian" values? You want first principles of the Enlightenment? First principles of postmodernism? First principles of Marxism? What? How about Pragmatism? Perhaps Trump is a pragmatist of the first order? Perhaps he has no moral principles at all, and simply is doing what he thinks is in US interests at the time? Who knows? But, how does amorality threaten the democratic institutions? It also does not suggest what he was actually inclined or impulsed to do which is dangerous to the republic or the democratic institutions.

"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright." That's what I've been saying! Yes! He isn't in line with the ideals "long espoused by conservatives" -- but, I disagree that conservatives espoused free minds and free people - free markets, yes. But the other two, conservatives were generally "religious right" folks who did not particularly support free minds, and conservatives opposed the free speech rights of the far left (communists) and they were socially conservative in terms of individual freedom. What I think this guy is confusing is conservatism with libertarianism. And, the free market bit, Trump's position is quite clear - I'll impose tough tariffs until the other countries agree to drop their tariffs and other barriers and clean up their acts to make the playing field fair.

And, again, none o that "showing little affinity to ideals long espoused by conservatives" says a damn thing about his "inclinations/impulses" and any danger to the republic or democratic institutions. CONSERVATIVES have been a threat to the republic and democratic institutions as they ceded more and power power to the Presidency, and pretty much ceded war powers to the President to get Congress of the hook and leaving the President basically the arbiter of when we go to war. The conservatives were a threat to the 4th amendment with their overly "law and order" mentality, etc. What examples of Trump's threats to democracy and the republic does this author give? None. Not. One.

"In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic." He didn't say the the "press" is the enemy of the people - he was clear that the part of the media that is the "fake news" media is the enemy of the people. And, he has a point when talking about CNN for sure. They're full of shit half the time. But, his impulses are "anti-trade"? Horse shit. He's been boosting trade and expanding markets in multiple industries. His tariffs have a targeted goal to ultimately get other countries to reduce their tariffs. But, this jagoff wants to "thwart" that, apparently? I say apparently, because he doesn't say. And, "anti-democratic?" How? The President acting within his constitutional authority is not a democracy. It's not up to a vote. What's he done that wasn't in line with his authority or reduced democracy? Nothing.

"Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more. But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective." Horse shit! The Republicans were unable to get tax reform, but for Trump. And, Trump spearheaded the robust military expansion, and he's the one who promised deregulation in the campaign and he over-delivered on that point. This guy just credited Trump for things Trump promised to do and did, but then said that Trump doesn't get the credit because he's adversarian and impetuous. Ineffective? Hardly. With everything he's done, whether you like it or not, he can not be called "ineffective." How'd he get all the things done that are "clearly contrary to the long held conservative ideals?" I mean, this guy makes no sense - he's ineffective, and the good things happened despite him, not because of him, but he's gotten a bunch of stuff done that were contrary to "long held" conservative ideals. How can he then be called "ineffective?" Obviously, he was very effective.

He says there are "reckless decisions" that have to be walked back. Really? What, pray tell? What decision did he made that others found to be reckless and they got him to "walk back" that reckless decision?

He changes his mind, and his meetings veer off topic. Oh, my! The democracy and the republic are in grave danger!

Come on - this article is useless generalities.

[Forty Two]

Is this officially weirder than Watergate now?

Dude, we passed watergate a long time ago.

Other than the fact that Trump hasn't committed an offence, been charged with anything, and it's not been suggested that he has committed an offense worthy of a charge, and other than the fact that there has been no suggestion of anyone breaking in to anything (like the watergate break-in), and other than the fact that in watergate, people in the administration like John Dean, Ehrlichman, Howard Hunt, Howard Porter, HR Haldeman and others committed and were convicted of crimes related to the watergate scandal, and here not a single person has been accused of anything related to the Russia/election issue... other than that, you're right.

[Animavore]

Is this officially weirder than Watergate now?

Dude, we passed watergate a long time ago.

It's more like Cow & Gate.

[Seabass]

A couple of takes on the New York Times "I'm one of the quiet heroes helping keep Trump on track" nonsense:

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: retaking of Mordor, darkening of Mirkwood, assault on Osgiliath. But these successes have come despite — not because of — the Dark Lord's leadership style.

- Gilkeson

"When I went to work for the pussy-grabbing birther gameshow pigman I never guessed people would allow their discourse to be stripped of civility by him"

- Berkowitz

Yeah, I more or less agree with that sentiment. Still, that there are people in Trump's own administration working against him because they recognize how bonkers and dangerous he is, is pretty remarkable. This is totally unprecedented as far as I am aware.

[Joe]

Is this officially weirder than Watergate now?

Dude, we passed watergate a long time ago.

Really? Where's the song? Did I miss it?

[Brian Peacock]

A couple of takes on the New York Times "I'm one of the quiet heroes helping keep Trump on track" nonsense:

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: retaking of Mordor, darkening of Mirkwood, assault on Osgiliath. But these successes have come despite — not because of — the Dark Lord's leadership style.

- Gilkeson

"When I went to work for the pussy-grabbing birther gameshow pigman I never guessed people would allow their discourse to be stripped of civility by him"

- Berkowitz

Yeah, I more or less agree with that sentiment. Still, that there are people in Trump's own administration working against him because they recognize how bonkers and dangerous he is, is pretty remarkable. This is totally unprecedented as far as I am aware.

People always claim that they're acting outside of the usual norms of the democratic process for the good of the country, but I don't see the NYT op-ed as anything more important or significant than the usual kind of political infighting that deals in off-the-record 'briefings' etc.

[Seabass]

Really? Between the op-ed and the Woodward book, this appears to me to go far beyond run-of-the-mill political infighting...

[Joe]

Sure these are unprecedented things, but do they have the impact the Watergate revelations did in 1973/74? The scandal permeated our culture back then. This is just "grab 'em by the pussy" - part 10. Will most American's notice? There was an article about it in my morning newspaper, but will there be a follow up, or will it be buried in the next outrage?

I think today's Americans are much less sensitive to this than in the 1970's.