Republicans

[Forty Two]

I do. I'm a real piece of work..

...piece of something, yes....

[Brian Peacock]

Joe -- until you can provide absolute examples which meet all of 42's conditions you forfeit your right to an opinion, or even to be taken seriously, and in the meantime the contrary view will be repeated, often, as if it remains unchallenged - untill/unless examples are provided that satisfy the aforementioned conditionality tests. Rinse and repeat...

I don't take him seriously. He didn't read the book.

The op ed writer wrote his piece, not Woodward. And nothing you've said suggests Woodward's book provides a single example of what the op ed writer said he and his resisters were thwarting. There are lots of books about Trump. I don't have to read them in order to know that the op ed writer said that he and others in the administration were actively thwarting the President from doing specific things that he is impulsed and inclined to do which are dangers/threats to democracy and democratic institutions. That's what the op ed writer said he and others were doing. Not one example of that has been cited or described.

It's not a "threat to democracy" for the president to think advisers don't know what they're doing. The President's cabinet is not a democratic institution. As noted, Obama was reported to have said he could do all their jobs better than they could. That, too, was not a "threat to democracy." All that is is pointing out that the President is conceited, self-aggrandized and egotistical. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

You're still doing it: arbitrarily declaring what Anon didn't put in the piece is more important / significant / prescient than what they did; erecting conditions that the piece cannot meet while charging Joe with the responsibility for meeting those conditions; taking issue with what Anon didn't say, or what they should have said, as an excuse for not dealing with what they did say...

... which was basically consistent with what had already been leaked about how the administration has been operating.

[Forty Two]

Brian, I dealt specifically with what he did say, at length, and I was excoriated for dealing with it in such detail and at such length.

What he did say was vague and unsubstantiated.

I, by no means, erected conditions that the piece could not meet. I explained examples of what a credible piece would contain. If I was criticizing, say, Kamala Harris in an article, and I said that she is unhinged, and her first impulse is to destroy our democratic institutions, and that I'm an employee of hers who is thwarting her unhinged impulses, so be heartened, I would certainly expect others to say "oh, really? you're saying she's tried to do things that are damaging to democratic institutions? What democratic institutions? What did she try to do? What did you do to thwart her?"

That's not erecting a condition that I can't fail to meet. It's utilization of a Baloney Detection Kit to try to prove or disprove the fact/reality claim being made. I'd be making a claim about reality. It's not unfair to seek independent verification of it.

If someone makes the allegations that democratic institutions are being threatened by what a person is doing, then to prove that wrong we'd have to know what democratic institutions are being threatened, by whom, and how. Then we can make observations to determine if the claim is true, or of the overall, vague allegation about impulses/inclinations is unsubstantiated.

What else can we do to determine if the writer is reporting accurately what happened?

And your last line about "consistent with how the administration was operating..." That's just saying that what the writer has been saying given what other unsubstantiated published allegations have said.

More importantly, though - essentially consistent is not relevant to what I said about the op ed piece. The op ed writer said, flat out, that he - and others - but he himself took action to thwart the President from doing something that would damage/threaten democracy or democratic institutions. He made that allegation. It's not unfair to want to know (a) what democratic institutions, (b) how were they threatened (by what attempted action by the President which was stopped), and (c) what did he do to stop/thwart the President?

That's not erecting conditions which cannot be met. That's basic analysis of a written composition.

Let me ask it this way. Do you believe that the writer really took action to thwart the President in doing something which threatened democracy or democratic institutions? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Joe]

Take it up with Glasser, Forty Two, if you disagree with her citation from the book. I gave you what you asked for,

Didn't, actually, because what I asked for was an example of what the op ed writer said he "thwarted." What you posted was not that.

Well, because I think the media did not, in fact, say that woodward’s book contained examples of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. But you can always cite your source. Maybe it’s one I haven’t seen.

Hey, at least it got your mind off John Brennan, and seems to have helped your writer's block.

Your citation did not refer to or describe an example of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. Pointing out that Trump insults people and says they don't know what they're doing is not that.

Moving the goalposts, Forty Two? Too bad you quoted exactly what you asked for in this post, evidence of what the media said, and "thwarted" your own argument. I gave you what you asked for, a media person claiming the book backed up the op-ed, and citing a passage in the book.

It's not my problem that you don't like Glasser's citation or agree with her assessment.

As for your "thwarted" question, I have to laugh at your willful ignorance. You can answer your own question by googling Woodward aides thwart Trump.

I think this addresses your other response as well.

[Jason]

Shots fired!

[Forty Two]

Take it up with Glasser, Forty Two, if you disagree with her citation from the book. I gave you what you asked for,

Didn't, actually, because what I asked for was an example of what the op ed writer said he "thwarted." What you posted was not that.

Well, because I think the media did not, in fact, say that woodward’s book contained examples of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. But you can always cite your source. Maybe it’s one I haven’t seen.

Hey, at least it got your mind off John Brennan, and seems to have helped your writer's block.

Your citation did not refer to or describe an example of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. Pointing out that Trump insults people and says they don't know what they're doing is not that.

Moving the goalposts, Forty Two? Too bad you quoted exactly what you asked for in this post, evidence of what the media said, and "thwarted" your own argument. I gave you what you asked for, a media person claiming the book backed up the op-ed, and citing a passage in the book.

It's not my problem that you don't like Glasser's citation or agree with her assessment.

As for your "thwarted" question, I have to laugh at your willful ignorance. You can answer your own question by googling Woodward aides thwart Trump.

I think this addresses your other response as well.

The cited passage did NOT provide an example of what the op ed writer said he and his resisters did. That's plain from the cited passage. It refers to something else - Trump telling people they don't know their jobs, etc. That's nothing at all related to the op ed writer saying he kept Trump from doing something that was threatening or damaging to democracy.

Also, in the link you posted, I clicked on the NBC News article and here's the example - "a stunning instance in which his top economic adviser snatched a document off his desk to avoid a decision on trade" - that's - again - NOT WHAT THE OP ED WRITER SAID. The op ed writer said that he thwarted Trump's impulses and inclinations to do things which would threaten or damage democracy or institutions of democracy, and/or the constitutional order. It's obvious why he phrased it that way: BECAUSE POLICY DIFFERENCES ARE NOT REASON FOR TRUMP'S EMPLOYEES TO THWART HIM. If you disagree with him on trade, tough shit - that doesn't threaten democracy or democratic institutions or the constitution.

You know what DOES threaten democracy, democratic institutions and the constitution? A fucking "aide" to the president snatching a paper off the President's desk to try to prevent the President from instituting the President's desired policy on trade. That's an "aide" usurping the President's role in making executive policy under the law.

Nothing in there, other than the snatching of the paper, suggests that an aide tried to thwart anything. And, the snatching of the paper had nothing to do with Trump doing anything illegal, unconstitutional, or threatening to Democracy or democratic institutions. It is the President's call whether to withdraw from a trade agreement.

That's what I've been trying to get at. What has been cited has been people saying they resisted him because of policy disagreements, not because of some unconstitutional or illegal act the President was going to commit.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian, I dealt specifically with what he did say, at length, and I was excoriated for dealing with it in such detail and at such length.

What he did say was vague and unsubstantiated.

I'd agree. But not wholly unsubstantiated, as Joe pointed out.

I, by no means, erected conditions that the piece could not meet. I explained examples of what a credible piece would contain. If I was criticizing, say, Kamala Harris in an article, and I said that she is unhinged, and her first impulse is to destroy our democratic institutions, and that I'm an employee of hers who is thwarting her unhinged impulses, so be heartened, I would certainly expect others to say "oh, really? you're saying she's tried to do things that are damaging to democratic institutions? What democratic institutions? What did she try to do? What did you do to thwart her?"

That's not erecting a condition that I can't fail to meet. It's utilization of a Baloney Detection Kit to try to prove or disprove the fact/reality claim being made. I'd be making a claim about reality. It's not unfair to seek independent verification of it.

I've no issue with not taking things at face value, but you're epistemological urge is to seek, as you put it, "Baloney". It consistently gives the impression that you're only interested in proving things false.

If someone makes the allegations that democratic institutions are being threatened by what a person is doing, then to prove that wrong we'd have to know what democratic institutions are being threatened, by whom, and how. Then we can make observations to determine if the claim is true, or of the overall, vague allegation about impulses/inclinations is unsubstantiated.

What else can we do to determine if the writer is reporting accurately what happened?

We can consider the context of their claims as well as their substance.

And your last line about "consistent with how the administration was operating..." That's just saying that what the writer has been saying given what other unsubstantiated published allegations have said.

You don't think these things kinda add up with frequency over time? Do you think Trump is capable of running a tight ship?

More importantly, though - essentially consistent is not relevant to what I said about the op ed piece. The op ed writer said, flat out, that he - and others - but he himself took action to thwart the President from doing something that would damage/threaten democracy or democratic institutions. He made that allegation. It's not unfair to want to know (a) what democratic institutions, (b) how were they threatened (by what attempted action by the President which was stopped), and (c) what did he do to stop/thwart the President?

My point, such that it is, is that while "it's not unfair to want to know" specific details, it's not so easy to dismiss this out-of-hand just because we don't have that information.

That's not erecting conditions which cannot be met. That's basic analysis of a written composition.

It's erecting a condition which cannot be met iff meeting that condition is deemed the only way to prove a negative - that the article isn't Baloney.

Let me ask it this way. Do you believe that the writer really took action to thwart the President in doing something which threatened democracy or democratic institutions? If so, why? If not, why not?

I think the Anon Op-ed was certainly extraordinary, and perhaps without precedent. Usually this level of double dealing is done in the cloak-and-dagger realm of "sources close to.." or "off the record.." or "some senior officials are suggesting that..." etc. This was a direct address to the American public from a senior advisor - and I trust the NYT not to just print any old tat that drops into their inbox without going to quite some lengths to verifying its source.

I absolutely understand why the Trump administration are so exercised about it, but generally, when someone on the inside of an organisation has an urge to tell the public what, by their lights, is really happening in that organisation they'll plump for anonymity - for quite understandable reasons. You're citing the anonymity and circumspection of Anon as a reason to call Baloney on the piece, and to isolate the matter from the wider context of already known knowns. The condition the Anon article cannot meet is the requirement that they be neither circumspect nor anonymous, and I don't buy the conspiracy theory that the so-called #FAKENEWS media is co-ordinating efforts to fabricate material detrimental to the Trump administration no matter how much he or his FOXy friends insist they are.

So yes, based on his track record so far I can believe that the President could be "doing something which threatened democracy or democratic institutions". I think wholesale, overly-broad, and oft-repeated ad hominem attacks on the media, for example, seriously undermine the robustness of US democracy. I think trying to scupper/invalidate investigations into Russian interference in the election that brought him to power pose a serious threat US democratic institutions. I also think he has done much that is, shall we say, unbecoming of a national head of state. But while I acknowledge that the charges in the Anon piece are believable, the circumspection of the author means that I can't say if they're true. It's just another piece in the Trump puzzle.

[Forty Two]

Brian, I dealt specifically with what he did say, at length, and I was excoriated for dealing with it in such detail and at such length.

What he did say was vague and unsubstantiated.

I'd agree. But not wholly unsubstantiated, as Joe pointed out.

What Joe pointed out did not substantiate the allegations in the OpEd.

I, by no means, erected conditions that the piece could not meet. I explained examples of what a credible piece would contain. If I was criticizing, say, Kamala Harris in an article, and I said that she is unhinged, and her first impulse is to destroy our democratic institutions, and that I'm an employee of hers who is thwarting her unhinged impulses, so be heartened, I would certainly expect others to say "oh, really? you're saying she's tried to do things that are damaging to democratic institutions? What democratic institutions? What did she try to do? What did you do to thwart her?"

That's not erecting a condition that I can't fail to meet. It's utilization of a Baloney Detection Kit to try to prove or disprove the fact/reality claim being made. I'd be making a claim about reality. It's not unfair to seek independent verification of it.

I've no issue with not taking things at face value, but you're epistemological urge is to seek, as you put it, "Baloney". It consistently gives the impression that you're only interested in proving things false.

Look, if someone makes a claim, they have the obligation to provide evidence (substantiation, corroboration, something) before they can expect to be believed. I can't prove the OpEd writer's claim true. I can only analyze his claims and try to determine what information I might need which could prove or disprove the claim - how to "falsify" the claim. At present, the claim in the OpEd is unfalsifiable, because we have no real idea what he's talking about.

Pointing to Bob Woodward's book is not support for the claim made in the OpEd because the links and quotes and paraphrases provided do not indicate anything Trump did that was unconstitutional, illegal or threatening to democracy or democratic institutions. As I noted, the writer of the OpEd had to set out things like "democracy and democratic institutions" as the things being at risk, because that's non-partisan or non-issue-related. I.e., everyone needs the constitution and the democratic institutions to function, and if a leader is trying to undermine the very constitutional or democratic structure (outside of the legal amendment processes), then he is acting outside of his legal and constitutional authority.

If person says that some aide snatched a paper from Trump's desk in an effort to prevent Trump from withdrawing from a free trade agreement with another country - that's not thwarting the President's effort to threaten democracy or democratic institutions. That's usurping policy-making power, and undermining the President's position. It's not illegal or antidemocratic or unconstitutional to withdraw from a trade agreement. Tariffs are not unconstitutional. Some "resisters" may oppose him on policy grounds and think that the President is wrong-headed - but "thwarting" him (as opposed to advising him and convincing him) is what is inappropriate and possibly illegal. They work for him, not vice versa. It's insubordination, at a minimum.

If someone makes the allegations that democratic institutions are being threatened by what a person is doing, then to prove that wrong we'd have to know what democratic institutions are being threatened, by whom, and how. Then we can make observations to determine if the claim is true, or of the overall, vague allegation about impulses/inclinations is unsubstantiated.

What else can we do to determine if the writer is reporting accurately what happened?

We can consider the context of their claims as well as their substance.

Do that, then. Write it out. Explain the context and substance of the claims, such that it shows or tends to show that the anonymous writer is correct about his claim that the President has impulses/inclinations to act in a way that is dangerous or threatening to democracy, democratic institutions, or the constitution, and that this person (or his fellow alleged resisters in the administration) took action to stop the President from doing something in that regard.

That's different than proving the President is an asshole, treats people like shit, or thinks they're all stupid, etc. I'm talking about the claims made by the oped writer - not some other claims.

And your last line about "consistent with how the administration was operating..." That's just saying that what the writer has been saying given what other unsubstantiated published allegations have said.

You don't think these things kinda add up with frequency over time? Do you think Trump is capable of running a tight ship?

All different issues. I'm talking about the specific claims made.

I don't think unsubstantiated allegations add up over time. And, there is plenty of politics being played in the anti-Trump movement. There is no reason to discard the need for corroboration and verification just because a lot of allegations have been made over time. If you really did believe that, then you'd believe the myriad allegations made against Hillary Clinton. Do you? There are decades of attacks on her - accusations of criminal behavior, mean behavior, lying, cheating, fraud, even murder. Do they "add up" to something? No, of course they don't. Why? Because you don't credit the sources reporting those claims with credence, unless they were to provide you with corroboration and verification, right?

More importantly, though - essentially consistent is not relevant to what I said about the op ed piece. The op ed writer said, flat out, that he - and others - but he himself took action to thwart the President from doing something that would damage/threaten democracy or democratic institutions. He made that allegation. It's not unfair to want to know (a) what democratic institutions, (b) how were they threatened (by what attempted action by the President which was stopped), and (c) what did he do to stop/thwart the President?

My point, such that it is, is that while "it's not unfair to want to know" specific details, it's not so easy to dismiss this out-of-hand just because we don't have that information.

I haven't dismissed it out of hand. I've thought carefully about it, and looked for information, and sought it out. What seems to be easy for some is to accept the truth of the allegations.

I haven't even heard you say that you don't accept the truth of the allegations. You haven't said you do accept them either.

I would hope that your view is similar to mine. It's one thing to say "I wouldn't put it past 'im...." It's quite another to simply not require a modicum of substantiation, particularly on such a dramatic and serious claim.

Think about it. If what this guy says is true, then Trump has tried to end or attack democracy itself, and he has sought to damage a "democratic institution." He has violated or attempted to violate the constitution, and exceeded his authority as President, and that it is his impulse and inclination to do so! He isn't just wrong about the extent of his authority - he WANTS to do it. And, the reason why it hasn't happened in some instances, is through the valor of the secret cohort of resisting republicans who are the "adults in the room" keeping him from doing that.

Isn't it important in that "context" to know what democratic institution Trump attacked? Which one? Was he trying to appoint a horse to his cabinet, like Caligula. Was he trying to disband Congress (a democratic institution)? Was he trying to put Supreme Court nominees on the bench without Senate approval? What was he doing? Isn't that important?

If the answer is -- OMG! He almost pulled us out of a trade agreement with South Korea! Surely you see how that's not the same thing - at all -- not even close -- as attacking the very democratic foundations of our government in unhinged unconstitutional attempts...

That's not erecting conditions which cannot be met. That's basic analysis of a written composition.

It's erecting a condition which cannot be met iff meeting that condition is deemed the only way to prove a negative - that the article isn't Baloney.

Nobody is asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking for someone to prove a positive assertion of fact.

Nobody has to prove the article isn't baloney. The Op Ed writer has to prove his factual assertions. Until that happens, a true skeptic and freethinker would view the assertions for what they are: unverified, uncorroborated, vague, assertions by an anonymous person who may or may not be telling the truth, may or may not have a bias, may or may not have a motive to fabricate, and the allegations as of right now are untestable.

What do we do with such claims?

Let me ask it this way. Do you believe that the writer really took action to thwart the President in doing something which threatened democracy or democratic institutions? If so, why? If not, why not?

I think the Anon Op-ed was certainly extraordinary, and perhaps without precedent. Usually this level of double dealing is done in the cloak-and-dagger realm of "sources close to.." or "off the record.." or "some senior officials are suggesting that..." etc. This was a direct address to the American public from a senior advisor - and I trust the NYT not to just print any old tat that drops into their inbox without going to quite some lengths to verifying its source.

Yes, indeed, the NYT said that they did go to "quite some lengths to verify its source..." Think about that. Jim Dao of the NYT said vetting included "direct communication with the author, some background checking and the testimony of [a] trusted intermediary."

Think about that. They verified the source as a SENIOR OFFICIAL. What background checking and testimony of trusted intermediaries would have to be done to verify that Anonymous is a "SENIOR OFFICIAL" in the administration. His Chief of Staff? Would they have to get the testimony of a trusted intermediary and check his background? Cabinet Members? Would they have to do that? Sarah Huckabee? Nikki Haley?

I put it to you that the NYT would only have to do background checks and contact trusted intermediaries if the "senior official" was someone who the NYT did not already know. A lesser "official" would have to be verified by background checks and discussions with trusted intermediaries. Why do a background check on a known official?

And, Dao said, "All I can say is I feel that we followed a definition that has been used by our newsroom in the past." Journalists are notoriously liberal in their definition of who constitutes a "senior administration official."

So, how senior is this person?

The anonymous "senior official" wrote in the Op-Ed --- "a top official" had "complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier." If the Op-Ed writer was a top official himself (senior) why would he refer to another official as a "top official." It's only if the writer is himself NOT a top official that he would refer to another as a top official.

I absolutely understand why the Trump administration are so exercised about it, but generally, when someone on the inside of an organisation has an urge to tell the public what, by their lights, is really happening in that organisation they'll plump for anonymity - for quite understandable reasons. You're citing the anonymity and circumspection of Anon as a reason to call Baloney on the piece, and to isolate the matter from the wider context of already known knowns. The condition the Anon article cannot meet is the requirement that they be neither circumspect nor anonymous, and I don't buy the conspiracy theory that the so-called #FAKENEWS media is co-ordinating efforts to fabricate material detrimental to the Trump administration no matter how much he or his FOXy friends insist they are.

I'm not basing any view here on any sort of conspiracy. A fact claim was made. It's not a question that I am proving it to be baloney. I'm using a baloney detection kit to show that the fact claim has not been proved, or even corroborated or verified. We're asked to believe it on the faith in the anonymous source, as vetted by the NYT, who says trust us.

It doesn't take a conspiracy for them to be wrong. They've been wrong often enough to warrant skepticism. They can be snowed by politicians. And, that doesn't take a media cabal. Politicians in both parties manipulate the media on purpose and they do so successfully, and it has been shown that some in the media are more than willing to participate knowingly.

That's not to say that we know that happened here. For all I know, the anonymous article is 100% true. However, all I have right now to go on is blind faith and trust. And, this is not an arena where faith and trust are very good bases to judge truth.

So yes, based on his track record so far

You didn't set forth a "track record."

I can believe that the President could be "doing something which threatened democracy or democratic institutions".

That's true of any President. They could be, and some have.

I think wholesale, overly-broad, and oft-repeated ad hominem attacks on the media,

I've not attacked the media at all here.

for example, seriously undermine the robustness of US democracy.

Oh, TRUMP's attack on the media - well, Obama attacked some of the media too. Trump attacked some of the media. Both did so often. In fact, I've posted before how the media were actually quite unhappy with the controls put on them by Obama, and how they're access to information was very much limited.

But, let's look at it this way. If the Op Ed person was saying that Trump's verbal criticisms, namecalling and ad hominem against the media are an example of his impulses/inclinations to damage democracy and democratic institutions.... then what did the Op Ed writer do to "thwart" it? Take his PDA out of his hand? Was there a particularly rude tweet they stopped the President from sending?

Doesn't sound like that's what the guy was writing about, does it?

I think trying to scupper/invalidate investigations into Russian interference in the election that brought him to power pose a serious threat US democratic institutions.

You mean denying that he was involved and calling it a witch hunt, etc., is a threat to democratic institutions? What did he do to try to scupper or invalidate? Express an opinion that it's bullshit?

I also think he has done much that is, shall we say, unbecoming of a national head of state. But while I acknowledge that the charges in the Anon piece are believable, the circumspection of the author means that I can't say if they're true. It's just another piece in the Trump puzzle.

Fair enough -

For my part, I have seen enough bullshit foisted against Trump that I don't trust anyone at face value on this issue. Democrats will do anything to see him impeached, and I do not credit them with only using truth and justice to do it. There are enough never-Trump type Republicans out there, that I can't rule out that this anonymous guy isn't one of them.

I'm not saying Trump is a choir boy, or speaks and behaves well in public. But, that's different than the allegations leveled against him. I've not seen a shred of corroboration of any allegations of Russian collusion. I've not seen a shred of corroboration for the OpEd writer's allegations. I've seen enough glee from major media outlets when they think they've got him, and enough sadness in their eyes and voices when it turns out that some key scoop they got turned out to be wrong, that I know they can't be trusted at face value. It's not a massive "conspiracy" -- it's just that journalists tend not to report things accurately when questions of law and politics are involved. So often they are wrong. So often they are misled. So often they are used by political operatives for political purposes. Stories are planted. Stories are crafted.

It's not that it happens most of the time. But it happens. And, when there is one party dead set at destroying their political opponents, and vice versa, there is good reason to require corroboration, verification, and/or proof.

[Joe]

Take it up with Glasser, Forty Two, if you disagree with her citation from the book. I gave you what you asked for,

Didn't, actually, because what I asked for was an example of what the op ed writer said he "thwarted." What you posted was not that.

Well, because I think the media did not, in fact, say that woodward’s book contained examples of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. But you can always cite your source. Maybe it’s one I haven’t seen.

Hey, at least it got your mind off John Brennan, and seems to have helped your writer's block.

Your citation did not refer to or describe an example of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. Pointing out that Trump insults people and says they don't know what they're doing is not that.

Moving the goalposts, Forty Two? Too bad you quoted exactly what you asked for in this post, evidence of what the media said, and "thwarted" your own argument. I gave you what you asked for, a media person claiming the book backed up the op-ed, and citing a passage in the book.

It's not my problem that you don't like Glasser's citation or agree with her assessment.

As for your "thwarted" question, I have to laugh at your willful ignorance. You can answer your own question by googling Woodward aides thwart Trump.

I think this addresses your other response as well.

The cited passage did NOT provide an example of what the op ed writer said he and his resisters did. That's plain from the cited passage. It refers to something else - Trump telling people they don't know their jobs, etc. That's nothing at all related to the op ed writer saying he kept Trump from doing something that was threatening or damaging to democracy.

Once again, it's not my problem. I answered your exact question, as quoted, and gave you evidence of the media behavior that you asked for. That you disagree with Susan Glasser's assessment is another matter entirely, and something you need to take up with her. As usual, you're trying to change the subject, requiring different evidence, when your prior assertion is successfully challenged - the informal fallacy called moving the goalposts.

Also, in the link you posted, I clicked on the NBC News article and here's the example - "a stunning instance in which his top economic adviser snatched a document off his desk to avoid a decision on trade" - that's - again - NOT WHAT THE OP ED WRITER SAID. The op ed writer said that he thwarted Trump's impulses and inclinations to do things which would threaten or damage democracy or institutions of democracy, and/or the constitutional order. It's obvious why he phrased it that way: BECAUSE POLICY DIFFERENCES ARE NOT REASON FOR TRUMP'S EMPLOYEES TO THWART HIM. If you disagree with him on trade, tough shit - that doesn't threaten democracy or democratic institutions or the constitution.

You know what DOES threaten democracy, democratic institutions and the constitution? A fucking "aide" to the president snatching a paper off the President's desk to try to prevent the President from instituting the President's desired policy on trade. That's an "aide" usurping the President's role in making executive policy under the law.

Nothing in there, other than the snatching of the paper, suggests that an aide tried to thwart anything. And, the snatching of the paper had nothing to do with Trump doing anything illegal, unconstitutional, or threatening to Democracy or democratic institutions. It is the President's call whether to withdraw from a trade agreement.

That's what I've been trying to get at. What has been cited has been people saying they resisted him because of policy disagreements, not because of some unconstitutional or illegal act the President was going to commit.

Uh, Forty Two, maybe you ought to reread that op-ed.

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.

In the context of Presidents, agenda is a policy term, and the citations you deride support this assertion. You've cherry picked the op-ed to discredit it, but you're wasting your time. I've already stated my reservations about it and moved on.

I know you can't do that, so you have my sympathies.

[Brian Peacock]

42: I'd be grateful if you addressed my points by the paragraph, or at least by the full sentence. Taking a single clause of a sentence as a standalone context-free statement is, well, somewhat uncharitable.

I think we've covered the ground on this now, but if you'd like to draw my attention to something germane which you still think needs to be addressed please feel free.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The Trump/Republican unofficial propaganda outlet showing how 'fair and balanced' it is:

"Fox News Uses 'Creepy Porn Lawyer' Chyron During Michael Avenatti Interview With Tucker"

Here's how Fox News' graphics department portrayed the upcoming Avenatti interview with Tucker Carlson as his show opened.



"Stormy Daniels' Lawyer Is Here Tonight,' says the graphics. Then about 24 seconds after he began the graphics changed as Carlson discussed Avenatti's possible presidential run.

"Creepy Porn Lawyer Talks About Presidential Run," immediately flashed on the screen.

And then this:



This happened throughout their contentious interview as you can see in the above video.

As Stormy's lawyer told Carlson he didn't want Tucker to interrupt him constantly, Tucker responded, "I have no interest in squabbling with you, I have no interest in name calling—I’ve done a lot of that.”

Even though he did badger him with nonsense, Carlson also left the name calling to the chyron and graphics department -- which was as uncouth and ethically egregious as it looks.

[pErvinalia]

Fair and balanced.

[Brian Peacock]

Well if he wasn't s creepy porn lawyer they wouldn't have to say it would they?

[pErvinalia]

How bizarre really. They have a problem with lawyers who represent porn stars, but no problem with a President who fucked a porn star while he was married, paid hush money to her, and then lied about it when he was found out. Only in America.

[Sean Hayden]

Remember these are people who voted Trump just to watch you cry. You can't assume they actually feel/believe anything like that.

Would it make a liberal mad to appear hypocritical on this issue? --good