• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

NYT op-ed: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

...

They're trying to overwrite "pro-Trump" to mean "pro-Deep State," only now it's "our" Deep State and not the evil Democrat/Elite controlled one that actually never existed and we were lying to you about all along and this is precisely the reason we created such a misdirection in the first place.

Iow, they just triggered twenty years of misdirection that was designed originally for precisely such a situation.

And consider the prospect for a new Democratic President, should we be so lucky as to get one in 2020. A government bureaucracy packed with Trump's appointees, many of whom will have conservative political agendas. A dismantled regulatory infrastructure. A Republican-controlled judiciary. A military used to having its way when it comes to setting policy and spending money. And international relations in shambles. A real "deep state" to contend with. I hope that we can find a strong candidate to handle that mess.
 
...

They're trying to overwrite "pro-Trump" to mean "pro-Deep State," only now it's "our" Deep State and not the evil Democrat/Elite controlled one that actually never existed and we were lying to you about all along and this is precisely the reason we created such a misdirection in the first place.

Iow, they just triggered twenty years of misdirection that was designed originally for precisely such a situation.

And consider the prospect for a new Democratic President, should we be so lucky as to get one in 2020. A government bureaucracy packed with Trump's appointees, many of whom will have conservative political agendas. A dismantled regulatory infrastructure. A Republican-controlled judiciary. A military used to having its way when it comes to setting policy and spending money. And international relations in shambles. A real "deep state" to contend with.

Exactly. That's why I think it's got Stone's fingerprints all over it. It's Brer Rabbit saying, "Don't throw me into the deep state briar patch..."

I hope that we can find a strong candidate to handle that mess.

I still think Kennedy could be that candidate. He's our Trudeau. And the family "baggage" works in his favor.

Just look at this photo. If that doesn't appeal to every swing Republican/turncoat Dem I don't know what would:

Screen Shot 2018-09-11 at 3.58.59 PM.png

Add in quotes like this and we're set:

Following Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s speech in March in which he called the plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act an “act of mercy,” Kennedy’s response went viral.

“With all due respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different scripture,” Kennedy said about the fellow Irish Catholic. “The one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are judged not by how we treat the powerful but by how we care for the least among us.”
 
Let me try and explain what I find bullshit about all of this.

Both this op-ed and the recent Woodward book indicate that members of the executive branch are simply choosing to ignore certain orders from the commander in chief. That is not right. That is not how this is supposed to work. For the members of the military who are doing this, that is fucking insubordination and valid grounds for a court martial.

Everyone is looking the other way because the orders that are being ignored are very bad orders that would do harm to the country.

The op-ed indicates that members of the administration debated invoking Amendment 25, and they decided against it. That's not right either.

If the commander in chief is giving bad orders that would harm the country such that numerous members of the executive branch are simply choosing to ignore his orders, that is precisely the time to invoke Amendment 25. If you are not willing to invoke Amendment 25, then you should obey every one of the president's orders no matter how damaging they are to the country.

Anything else is an attack on the rule of law.

Personally, I think they should invoke amendment 25 and let Mueller have his way with Trump, but if they decided that would be "too divisive," then they should live with the consequences of leaving him in office and obey every order he gives. Simply ignoring the commands they don't happen to like is not OK. That is not at all how the executive branch is supposed to work.

The first time one of his commands were ignored and everyone agreed it was the right call, that should have been the moment to remove him from office for the good of the country.

But we don't care about the good of the country anymore, do we? It's all about party before country and replacing the rule of law with the rule of men, isn't it?

Meanwhile, on the other side, Democrats are carefully avoiding doing anything to remove Trump from office so that they can maximize their gains in the next election. The establishment Democrats are as guilty of putting party before country as the Republicans, and this fucking bullshit has to fucking stop. The moment Obama refused to prosecute Bush II for war crimes, the rule of law was in jeopardy, and it seems like every decision made since then by both parties has made matters worse.

At what point do we say country before party? At what point do we decide to have the rule of law instead of the rule of men?

This is not OK.

None of this is fucking OK.

Fuck.
 
Exactly. That's why I think it's got Stone's fingerprints all over it. It's Brer Rabbit saying, "Don't throw me into the deep state briar patch..."

I hope that we can find a strong candidate to handle that mess.

I still think Kennedy could be that candidate. He's our Trudeau. And the family "baggage" works in his favor.

Just look at this photo. If that doesn't appeal to every swing Republican/turncoat Dem I don't know what would:

View attachment 17508

Add in quotes like this and we're set:

Following Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s speech in March in which he called the plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act an “act of mercy,” Kennedy’s response went viral.

“With all due respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different scripture,” Kennedy said about the fellow Irish Catholic. “The one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are judged not by how we treat the powerful but by how we care for the least among us.”

We don't need another version of Kennedy. We don't need another version of Trudeau.

We need another Teddy Roosevelt who will run around and smash all the levers of power currently used by the economic elites.

I don't know who that someone might be, but it's definitely not any of the establishment Dems. They're up to their eyeballs in PAC money.
 

Regardless of who wrote it, it raises a serious credibility problem about the accuracy of the first op-ed and we can now dismiss everything in that one as a partisan lie. The first one was probably written by Hillary anyways because she's still angry about losing the popular vote so badly in the last election.
 
The first time one of his commands were ignored and everyone agreed it was the right call, that should have been the moment to remove him from office for the good of the country.

But we don't care about the good of the country anymore, do we? It's all about party before country and replacing the rule of law with the rule of men, isn't it?

Meanwhile, on the other side, Democrats are carefully avoiding doing anything to remove Trump from office so that they can maximize their gains in the next election. The establishment Democrats are as guilty of putting party before country as the Republicans, and this fucking bullshit has to fucking stop. The moment Obama refused to prosecute Bush II for war crimes, the rule of law was in jeopardy, and it seems like every decision made since then by both parties has made matters worse.

At what point do we say country before party? At what point do we decide to have the rule of law instead of the rule of men?

This is not OK.

None of this is fucking OK.

Fuck.

The problem is the people who see the problems aren't the same people who would decide on the 25th.
 
The first time one of his commands were ignored and everyone agreed it was the right call, that should have been the moment to remove him from office for the good of the country.

But we don't care about the good of the country anymore, do we? It's all about party before country and replacing the rule of law with the rule of men, isn't it?

Meanwhile, on the other side, Democrats are carefully avoiding doing anything to remove Trump from office so that they can maximize their gains in the next election. The establishment Democrats are as guilty of putting party before country as the Republicans, and this fucking bullshit has to fucking stop. The moment Obama refused to prosecute Bush II for war crimes, the rule of law was in jeopardy, and it seems like every decision made since then by both parties has made matters worse.

At what point do we say country before party? At what point do we decide to have the rule of law instead of the rule of men?

This is not OK.

None of this is fucking OK.

Fuck.

The problem is the people who see the problems aren't the same people who would decide on the 25th.

Yup. The system is supposed to have checks and balances to prevent this kind of person from ever becoming POTUS (Electoral College), and to remove any POTUS who goes off the rails or who slips past the EC filter (25th, Impeachment). But the existence of the partisan system plus Duverger's Law in a single member district FPTP electoral system means that none of these checks or balances are actually fit for purpose.

Your entire system needs a major overhaul. Trump is not so much an aberration, as an inevitable result of a system that was designed to be responsive to changing circumstances (Jefferson is said to have thought that the entire constitution should be re-written every twenty years), but which has instead become entrenched dogma, that most of the people whose duty it is to work for changes to it see as an almost sacred text that should not even be questioned.

The debate on the Second Amendment is a good example; The NRA don't argue with the gun control lobby very often about whether or not the amendment should be re-written, or scrapped altogether; They argue about what the original wording actually means, and how it should be interpreted.

Who cares what the founding fathers wanted to say about the right to bear arms? Why is this relevant today? Well, it's not - unless you are indoctrinated to view the Constitution as more than just a bunch of good ideas at the time, written down by smart men who expected other smart men to carry on updating their work to suit the environment in which they found themselves.

You will continue to get periodic Trumps as POTUS, until either one of them destroys you nation (and perhaps the rest of the world); Or you make some significant changes to the way in which Presidents are chosen. Mandatory voting would be a good idea. Some kind of proportional representation for Reps and Senators; Scrapping the EC and the Primary system, and having instant run off presidential ballots instead. Severe and tightly enforced electoral spending caps and limits on campaign advertising both by candidates and lobby/interest groups. Citizen initiated recall ballots for unpopular presidents, so that if congress won't impeach, the people can act in their stead. There are tons of better ways to pick a president than the one you currently have, and tons of better ways to enable a bad president to be removed.

But in order for any of this to happen, the people need to get off their backsides, and at the very least VOTE. For people who are committed to doing the hard work of reforming the system. The problem is that Americans are soft and apathetic. It constantly astonishes me that the workers in the US haven't risen up in a bloody revolution to demand an end to 'at will' employment, and the establishment of universal health care. The main reason for this seems to be that they are genuinely ignorant that things could be so much better for them than the status quo. Y'all need to stop clinging to God and guns, and get yourselves an education.
 
The system is supposed to have checks and balances to prevent this kind of person from ever becoming POTUS (Electoral College), and to remove any POTUS who goes off the rails or who slips past the EC filter (25th, Impeachment). But the existence of the partisan system plus Duverger's Law in a single member district FPTP electoral system means that none of these checks or balances are actually fit for purpose.

Your entire system needs a major overhaul.

Not really. The issue with the EC is actually that the majority of the states have castrated its mandate by ironically requiring its electors to only vote as the popular vote of the state goes. The whole point was for electors to be able to go "faithless" (i.e., rogue and vote their conscience instead of for what the majority voters in each state voted).

So the EC's mandate (the one after its original one; to protect slavery) was already rendered moot long ago. The popular vote is the only vote that exists, it's just that, due to the continued vestige of the EC, it's segregated by state when it should not be, since it's a federal matter and there hasn't been any such thing as state's rights since before the Civil War. Idiots keep shouting about it and for some bizarre reason we still keep pretending that states are sovereign, but they're not and never really were. That was the whole point of creating a union, regardless of the appeasement rhetoric we are still burdened with.

Iow, there are two solutions; one is to simply cut off the dead vestigial arm of the EC entirely. The other is to correctly declare what states have done in regard to castrating the EC's mandate to be unconstitutional and restore the EC's "faithless" autonomy.

Either way, it doesn't require the entire system to receive a "major overhaul." It does, however, require a major process to do either one of those options, which is why the dead arm has been allowed to just continue to fester and primarily for the obvious reason that it benefits the cheaters (aka, Republicans) more often than not.
 
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68 by Alexander Hamilton, advocating the Electoral College. He proposed that each state choose some electors, and that those electors would then vote for the President. He did so because he expected that electors would have the sort of broad knowledge that would enable them to make good choices. He also proposed that the electors vote in their states instead of together so that they can be less vulnerable to demagogues and foreign meddling.

That was what was selected, with other proposals being election by state governors and election by Congress.

The Electoral College soon became a rubber-stamp body, failing in the first part of this defense. With Trump, it failed in the second part, electing a demagogue who was supported by foreign meddling.

National Popular Vote is an effort to work around the EC. If enough states agree, then they will award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. It is now half of the way to its target.
 
The first time one of his commands were ignored and everyone agreed it was the right call, that should have been the moment to remove him from office for the good of the country.

But we don't care about the good of the country anymore, do we? It's all about party before country and replacing the rule of law with the rule of men, isn't it?

Meanwhile, on the other side, Democrats are carefully avoiding doing anything to remove Trump from office so that they can maximize their gains in the next election. The establishment Democrats are as guilty of putting party before country as the Republicans, and this fucking bullshit has to fucking stop. The moment Obama refused to prosecute Bush II for war crimes, the rule of law was in jeopardy, and it seems like every decision made since then by both parties has made matters worse.

At what point do we say country before party? At what point do we decide to have the rule of law instead of the rule of men?

This is not OK.

None of this is fucking OK.

Fuck.

The problem is the people who see the problems aren't the same people who would decide on the 25th.
Based on Woodward's book, that is clearly not true. There is a difference between not seeing a problem and using it to your advantage.
 
The other is to correctly declare what states have done in regard to castrating the EC's mandate to be unconstitutional and restore the EC's "faithless" autonomy.

30 states plus DC have laws that require electors to vote for their pledged candidate. In only 9 does the law stipulate that a faithless elector's vote will be cancelled and a new elector chosen.

https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws

It is not clear that such laws are enforceable - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#U.S._Supreme_Court
 
The first time one of his commands were ignored and everyone agreed it was the right call, that should have been the moment to remove him from office for the good of the country.

But we don't care about the good of the country anymore, do we? It's all about party before country and replacing the rule of law with the rule of men, isn't it?

Meanwhile, on the other side, Democrats are carefully avoiding doing anything to remove Trump from office so that they can maximize their gains in the next election. The establishment Democrats are as guilty of putting party before country as the Republicans, and this fucking bullshit has to fucking stop. The moment Obama refused to prosecute Bush II for war crimes, the rule of law was in jeopardy, and it seems like every decision made since then by both parties has made matters worse.

At what point do we say country before party? At what point do we decide to have the rule of law instead of the rule of men?

This is not OK.

None of this is fucking OK.

Fuck.

The problem is the people who see the problems aren't the same people who would decide on the 25th.
Based on Woodward's book, that is clearly not true. There is a difference between not seeing a problem and using it to your advantage.

Doesn't Congress decide on the 25th?
 
Based on Woodward's book, that is clearly not true. There is a difference between not seeing a problem and using it to your advantage.

Doesn't Congress decide on the 25th?

They get the ultimate say, but they get no say at all on the decision to invoke it.

Right. That falls to the Cabinet. Which is why Cheato will be firing a bunch of them right after the election. Gotta "25th - proof" himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom