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

[Svartalf]

showing that today's merkins are silly, to say the least... if the president get's that kino of opposition, and the record he has to boot, it's not impeachment, that is needed, it is immediate admission in a mental ward.

[JimC]

The trouble is that the Secret Service will gun down the men in the white coats before they get to use their straightjacket...

[Joe]

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.

Better refutation in a tweet.

[Seabass]

Historian Michael Beschloss says it's unprecedented.

[Animavore]

Why is the criminal Trump allowed to pick his own judge who will not recuse himself from denying Mueller a subpoena?

[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.

Better refutation in a tweet.

frenchTweet.jpg

I think my tl/dr version of that expands on the reality that in the OP-ED article he isn't even "portrayed" as unstable. He's alleged to be unstable. No evidence is described therein to show instability. I find it ridiculous that the writer would say that he's part of some republican resistance to the President who is preventing the President from following through on his worst impulses and inclinations, and who is thwarting the President from his worst policy decisions, but the op-ed specifies exactly zero examples of where the President's impulses, inclinations and bad policy decisions were, in fact, stopped.

What did the president really want to do? Nuke Pyongyang? Lead a military coup and abolish Congress? What "anti-democracy" policies or efforts were actually made or done, or attempted and thwarted? Nothing is pointed to.

The only specifics provided are that Trump's personality is volatile, he treats people like shit, and he holds meetings which veer off on tangents, and he doesn't seem (in the opinion of the "resistance") to have a good grasp of the issues (he's like a middle schooler on political issues, in their view). Other than that, the resistance simply thinks his policies are wrong headed.

But as I've pointed out on other threads, he was elected. Disagreeing with his policies is not license to "thwart" him if he's these peoples' boss, which he is. The President makes policies, not some fucking "senior officials." And, the President being an asshole isn't grounds for impeachment.

Based on the op-ed, the writer should be fired for gross dereliction of duty and insubordination. He was not elected. Trump was.

[Forty Two]

Historian Michael Beschloss says it's unprecedented.

The reporting on this is fucking nuts. These people are deranged.

Beschloss says that this is unprecedented because we have a senior official who says the president is unhinged to the point of the 25th Amendment, and he refers to the President's "weird views" on foreign leaders and tariffs. Really? Fuckstick - the President makes fucking policy. And, if he wants to go to China, or go to Moscow or go to Pyongyang and treat with those world leaders, he can fucking damn well do it, and it isn't for Beschloss to make contrary policy. Beschloss and MSNBC can think that treating with or having a working relationship with unsavory world leaders is bad, but it's not unconstitutional and it's not crazy, and it's the President's fucking job to engage in foreign policy and determine who to deal with and how.

And, "tariffs"? Weird views on "tariffs?" Is he fucking kidding? Proposing tariffs is not "unhinged" and just because Europe and Canada squawk because Trump is squeezing them on tariffs and demanding they reduce their barriers to trade or he's going to raise ours, that's not unhinged or weird. It's a different fucking policy view. It's contrary to the globalist preference, yes. But, that's all. It's policy differences.

And, yes, this is unprecedented. It's an abysmal insubordination to the highest degree by an employee of the President who is openly saying he's trying to thwart the President's desired policies - the policies he was elected to enact. These asshats may not like the policies, but Trump does, and Trump is the elected leader, not them.

[Forty Two]

Why is the criminal Trump allowed to pick his own judge who will not recuse himself from denying Mueller a subpoena?

Why is the President allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, who is then submitted to the Senate for consent? Uhhh...because that's the Constitutional duty of the President.

If there is a subpoena issued, there would be no judge "denying" the subpoena. Mueller has subpoena power, and he just writes it up and serves it on the President. The President would file a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing for any number of reasons that it is unenforceable. That ruling would be made by a US district judge. The losing party could appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and then the losing party there could request certiorari review by the Supreme Court which may or may not accept the matter for appeal, and which could then rule on it, and Kavanaugh would be one of 9 justices making the ruling.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, then I don't see what the problem is.

And, nobody has even accused Trump of a crime. That's all made up in your head.

[Animavore]

Some linguists are saying Pence wrote the NYT op-ed. Which is kinda interesting if true.

https://gritpost.com/bbc-linguistics-mike-pence/

[Tero]

‘New York Times’ Publishes Bombshell Anonymous Opinion Article From White House Insider

The New York Times published an opinion piece from an anonymous White House senior official criticizing President Trump and noting many members of his administration are working to “thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” What do you think?


“It’s good for a leader to surround himself with different viewpoints.”

BRANDON WALLACE • RILLETTE ENJOYER


“‘Senior official’ could easily just mean some unimportant pissant like Mike Pence.”
LEELA DALBY • PACHINKO TECHNICIAN


“It’s a good thing this was published or we’d have never known the president was a bad person!”

SAMUEL O’BRIAN • SYSTEMS ANALYST

[Animavore]

Just watching Obama's speech today. How did the US go from this magnificent beast of a man to the snivelling invertebrate sliming up the White House right now I'll never know.

It's like washing down a good wine with bleach.

[Seabass]

What a pathetic, small man.

Trump inauguration crowd photos were edited after he intervened
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... tos-edited

[Joe]

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.

Better refutation in a tweet.

frenchTweet.jpg

I think my tl/dr version of that expands on the reality that in the OP-ED article he isn't even "portrayed" as unstable. He's alleged to be unstable. No evidence is described therein to show instability. I find it ridiculous that the writer would say that he's part of some republican resistance to the President who is preventing the President from following through on his worst impulses and inclinations, and who is thwarting the President from his worst policy decisions, but the op-ed specifies exactly zero examples of where the President's impulses, inclinations and bad policy decisions were, in fact, stopped.

What did the president really want to do? Nuke Pyongyang? Lead a military coup and abolish Congress? What "anti-democracy" policies or efforts were actually made or done, or attempted and thwarted? Nothing is pointed to.

The only specifics provided are that Trump's personality is volatile, he treats people like shit, and he holds meetings which veer off on tangents, and he doesn't seem (in the opinion of the "resistance") to have a good grasp of the issues (he's like a middle schooler on political issues, in their view). Other than that, the resistance simply thinks his policies are wrong headed.

But as I've pointed out on other threads, he was elected. Disagreeing with his policies is not license to "thwart" him if he's these peoples' boss, which he is. The President makes policies, not some fucking "senior officials." And, the President being an asshole isn't grounds for impeachment.

Based on the op-ed, the writer should be fired for gross dereliction of duty and insubordination. He was not elected. Trump was.

Yes, you took over 1200 words to make the point that "this article is useless generalities."

French used 46 words to make two assertions that, if you accept them, eviscerate the pretense that this "resistance" is somehow serving the country, and point up the lack of actionable evidence.

That's why he's a Senior Writer at National Review, and you and I are just schlubs bloviating on the interwebs.

[Brian Peacock]

Bloviating!

The op-ed didn't just deal in generalities, it stated that, "Many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office." That's pretty specific.

While I acknowledge that the only legitimate way to 'resist' Trump is to oppose him democratically, it should be a concern for every citizen if the democratically elected Presidentof the USA is using their power and position to circumvent democratic processes and/or subvert democratic institutions. That would be unconstitutional by definition. That's why the immediate focus should be on the truth-status of the allegation rather than their authorship: is Trump actually, actively undermining or bypassing democratic institutions, and if so how and are his appointed staff actually acting against him to protect democracy? Personally I think he's just unaware of the limits of his power and how democracy actually operates in the US - he's no constitutional scholar is he? - nor does he strike me as the kind of person who'd be interested in finding out.

I think the op-ed also sends a message to Republican voters: you might feel queasy about Trump, but don't worry, there's good guys on the inside doing the right thing - it's still safe to vote Republican.

[Joe]

Bloviating!

Yeah, since the Harding administration is the closest analog I've found to Trump's, I figured I'd use a word he reputedly coined. Forty Two would do well to keep H. L. Mencken's description of Harding's bloviation in mind in future posts.

He writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash.

There are times I know just how he felt.

The op-ed didn't just deal in generalities, it stated that, "Many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office." That's pretty specific.

While I acknowledge that the only legitimate way to 'resist' Trump is to oppose him democratically, it should be a concern for every citizen if the democratically elected Presidentof the USA is using their power and position to circumvent democratic processes and/or subvert democratic institutions. That would be unconstitutional by definition. That's why the immediate focus should be on the truth-status of the allegation rather than their authorship: is Trump actually, actively undermining or bypassing democratic institutions, and if so how and are his appointed staff actually acting against him to protect democracy? Personally I think he's just unaware of the limits of his power and how democracy actually operates in the US - he's no constitutional scholar is he? - nor does he strike me as the kind of person who'd be interested in finding out.

I think the op-ed also sends a message to Republican voters: you might feel queasy about Trump, but don't worry, there's good guys on the inside doing the right thing - it's still safe to vote Republican.

I agree with what you say, but underlying French's rebuke is the long established DC norm that when the President you work for is, in your view, not acting in the best interests of the country, you loudly and publicly resign. You create a controversy, offer your testimony to the Congress, and suffer the resulting character assassination and end of your career.

In a Presidency notorious for flouting American norms, this letter flouts the norm and the author's credibility suffers for it.

I also got the message to the GOP from this, but consider that putting partisan interest ahead of the interests of all Americans.

I could say more and offer examples, but having recently commented on long posts, I'll stop here.