Something is Rotten

[Cardinal]

"the article has caused far more chaos than reassurance"

It's just the first day.

Really? By my count it's the 593rd day.

 

[Amelia]

Really? By my count it's the 593rd day.

lol ... the first day of this article being out.

When the shock wears off, maybe there will be more reassurance.

 

[Cardinal]

lol ... the first day of this article being out.

I know. :lol:

When the shock wears off, maybe there will be more reassurance.

Buckle in. Assuming the Democrats win the House back, then we still get to experience...

1)Trump just firing everybody in sight during a lame duck Congress.
2)The Trump Administration fighting every subpoena for every record on earth from a Democratic-controlled House.
3)A Constitutional appeal for subpoenas and whatnot, which will reach the Supreme Court, which will have a Justice who refuses to answer questions about recusals in the hypothetical situation that he must make a ruling concerning Trump.

If you don't meditate, I suggest starting. That or hard drugs. Those are good too.

 

[jnug]

A couple points:

Yes, if they publicly out themselves they become "Comey-ed." But only in the eyes of Trump's base. They're called his "base" for a reason. They don't matter in the larger discussion. Wondering when they will "crack" is an exercise in masochism. Stop waiting for them to "see the light." They won't.

No, this is not a one-size-fits-all argument against anonymous reporting. Far from it. But this is a unique situation in which the status of the author, the ambiguity of his identity and therefore the ambiguity of his/her motivations are such that the article has caused far more chaos than reassurance...assuming that reassurance was the motive to begin with. (We have no idea).

Reassurance is too kind. This is an effort to thread an impossible needle to thread. The author of the NYT op-ed is clearly a Republican, clearly has far more political experience than most of the wing nuts in the Trump administration. Its somebody making an effort to salvage what remains of the old line Republican party by telling the country that its old line GOP political operatives that have been holding the country together all along. REALLY??....

What you really have been doing is pushing your agenda through while nursing this crippled President along. Again, there are no heroes here....none. So while there is ample evidence that the Woodward book and the op-ed is accurate, there is no high moral ground for any of these people. That is what the op-ed is trying to establish...some high moral ground for a bunch of ruthless opportunists....snakes. That should be the new mascot for the GOP...a snake. An elephant is much too honorable for this crowd.

 

[vesper]

Well, the End of Days must be nigh. I'm agreeing with something written in The Atlantic.



The above is the final paragraph from this - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-mattis-kelly-new-york-times/569416/

Very sorry to find your comments on this post.

 

[Lutherf]

Alternate proposals:

1)Don't elect candidates for the highest offices that have zero experience.
2)Don't elect candidates with a known propensity for scams and abuse of other people.
3)Don't elect candidates for the purpose of "turning him into a missile and aiming it as Washington."

The problem wasn't Federal government; the problem was the motives of the people who voted for the President.

The problem is not the motives of the people who voted for Trump. There are as many reasons people voted for Trump as there are people who voted for Trump. Lumping all those voters into one basket [of deplorables] is a HUGE part of the reason Trump is in office. It's been said over and over and over; dismissing the actual motivations of those with whom you hold an ideological difference of opinion and impugning their intellect is a sure fire way of pissing them off. Hillary failed to absorb that lesson and, apparently, so did a bunch of other people.

 

[Cardinal]

Reassurance is too kind. This is an effort to thread an impossible needle to thread. The author of the NYT op-ed is clearly a Republican,

Well, you're right about that. There's one fact we can rely on, if nothing else. The author is indeed a Republican. The author is also an official in the White House.

There. That's what we know.

clearly has far more political experience than most of the wing nuts in the Trump administration. Its somebody making an effort to salvage what remains of the old line Republican party by telling the country that its old line GOP political operatives that have been holding the country together all along. REALLY??....

What you really have been doing is pushing your agenda through while nursing this crippled President along. Again, there are no heroes here....none. So while there is ample evidence that the Woodward book and the op-ed is accurate, there is no high moral ground for any of these people. That is what the op-ed is trying to establish...some high moral ground for a bunch of ruthless opportunists....snakes. That should be the new mascot for the GOP...a snake. An elephant is much too honorable for this crowd.

Er..."you"? As in...me?

 

[jnug]

Well, you're right about that. There's one fact we can rely on, if nothing else. The author is indeed a Republican. The author is also an official in the White House.

There. That's what we know.




Er..."you"? As in...me?

NO!!!! Those operatives in the WH that are operating as a shadow government.

 

[Chomsky]

I know. :lol:



Buckle in. Assuming the Democrats win the House back, then we still get to experience...

1)Trump just firing everybody in sight during a lame duck Congress.
2)The Trump Administration fighting every subpoena for every record on earth from a Democratic-controlled House.
3)A Constitutional appeal for subpoenas and whatnot, which will reach the Supreme Court, which will have a Justice who refuses to answer questions about recusals in the hypothetical situation that he must make a ruling concerning Trump.

If you don't meditate, I suggest starting. That or hard drugs. Those are good too.

I've got to admit, it's the bolded that worries me the most.

 

[Chomsky]

Reassurance is too kind. This is an effort to thread an impossible needle to thread. The author of the NYT op-ed is clearly a Republican, clearly has far more political experience than most of the wing nuts in the Trump administration. Its somebody making an effort to salvage what remains of the old line Republican party by telling the country that its old line GOP political operatives that have been holding the country together all along. REALLY??....

What you really have been doing is pushing your agenda through while nursing this crippled President along. Again, there are no heroes here....none. So while there is ample evidence that the Woodward book and the op-ed is accurate, there is no high moral ground for any of these people. That is what the op-ed is trying to establish...some high moral ground for a bunch of ruthless opportunists....snakes. That should be the new mascot for the GOP...a snake. An elephant is much too honorable for this crowd.

"Well said", to the bolded! :thumbs:

 

[Cardinal]

The problem is not the motives of the people who voted for Trump. There are as many reasons people voted for Trump as there are people who voted for Trump. Lumping all those voters into one basket [of deplorables] is a HUGE part of the reason Trump is in office. It's been said over and over and over; dismissing the actual motivations of those with whom you hold an ideological difference of opinion and impugning their intellect is a sure fire way of pissing them off. Hillary failed to absorb that lesson and, apparently, so did a bunch of other people.

Yes, it's the motives of the people who voted for Trump. Don't try to transfer away responsibility. They knew he had no experience, they knew he was a conman, they knew he sexually harassed women, they knew he paid off people to end investigations into himself and they knew he didn't pay employees. Finally, don't tell me it was him or Clinton. It wasn't. It was him versus an entire field of Republican candidates who may have been mediocre but didn't live up to the infamy of Trump.

Trump voters entered this with their eyes wide open, which is why I tell people that waiting for Trump supporters to "see the light" is an exercise in masochism. They knew who he was then, and they know who he is now.

If you voted for Trump, this is your fault. Deal with it.

 

[Chomsky]

Well, you're right about that. There's one fact we can rely on, if nothing else. The author is indeed a Republican. The author is also an official in the White House.

There. That's what we know.



Er..."you"? As in...me?

I'm going to venture he is a Conservative, as well. Of course that used to be the case of many Republicans, pre-Trump. No longer.

 

[Chomsky]

The problem is not the motives of the people who voted for Trump. There are as many reasons people voted for Trump as there are people who voted for Trump. Lumping all those voters into one basket [of deplorables] is a HUGE part of the reason Trump is in office. It's been said over and over and over; dismissing the actual motivations of those with whom you hold an ideological difference of opinion and impugning their intellect is a sure fire way of pissing them off. Hillary failed to absorb that lesson and, apparently, so did a bunch of other people.

But how do you explain voting for Trump without forcing him to bare his tax returns, to examine for conflict? You don't see voter negligence, here?

 

[PLizzy]

But with as much time as his returns have spent being audited, there would have to be some new information from his criminal cronies to stick him with anything that way.

I bet his returns would just be embarrassing -- to anyone in the GOP who is still pretending to have a principle -- but not enough to hurt him legally.

The IRS can miss even the most major examples of fraud in an audit, look at Enron. That's because all they're typically looking for is major undisclosed income, not to investigate an organizations business practices, or to see if a person is breaking other laws.

If Trump is using company money for personal expenses, committing bank fraud, laundering money, breaking FEC laws, violating the emolument clause, or running other scams, the IRS can easily miss those crimes in an audit.

 

[Cardinal]

I'm going to venture he is a Conservative, as well. Of course that used to be the case of many Republicans, pre-Trump. No longer.

What is "Conservative" anymore? Does anybody really know? Oh, I know we can run off a litany of Culture War topics, but those have contradicted themselves so convolutedly of late that I really don't know what they mean anymore, and I'm not sure they do either.

 

[Lutherf]

But how do you explain voting for Trump without forcing him to bare his tax returns, to examine for conflict? You don't see voter negligence, here?

His tax returns are his business. I would never require ANYONE to disclose their tax returns to the general public.

 

[Chomsky]

His tax returns are his business. I would never require ANYONE to disclose their tax returns to the general public.

So how do you vet him for conflict of interest?

 

[jnug]

"Well said", to the bolded! :thumbs:

We have to remember the depth of the depravity being exposed here, not just in Trump but in this entire miserable crew. We are talking about people claiming to have absconded with control of the military on top of everything else. This whole two track Presidency thing is utter and complete craziness. The degree to which you have to be depraved to literally have ripped away the foundation of this Constitutional Republic so that you could pass through your agenda under cover of nursing this crippled man through as President is simply disgusting beyond belief.

That whoever wrote this piece thought there was some benefit to be gained for writing it, that he would be able to thread this needle of establishing the GOP as the savior of the country from Trump speaks volumes about the GOP. That said, they knew what they were getting in Trump from the very beginning and they knew what they would be doing from the very beginning if he won.

Though we muse about who the author of the op-ed might be, the more I think about it, while there might be one author i am willing to bet this is some sort of an effort mounted by more than one administration official all with the same goal in mind, establishing the GOP as the savior of the country from Trump. Remember, one part of the piece talked about another senior official that told the author about one of his Trump experiences. That person KNOWS who the author is and the author knows he knows. That is one heck of a tell and establishes that there at least two of them in on this op-ed! Does not take much of an imagination to get past two.

 

[PLizzy]

The problem is not the motives of the people who voted for Trump. There are as many reasons people voted for Trump as there are people who voted for Trump. Lumping all those voters into one basket [of deplorables] is a HUGE part of the reason Trump is in office. It's been said over and over and over; dismissing the actual motivations of those with whom you hold an ideological difference of opinion and impugning their intellect is a sure fire way of pissing them off. Hillary failed to absorb that lesson and, apparently, so did a bunch of other people.

We're well aware of why conservatives voted for Trump: tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and "owning" the libs.

His serial lying, savage nature, and world class incompetence and unfitness for office were apparent even to the right, but they voted for him anyways. He can do anything and become anything he wants, so long as he rubber stamps tax bills and rams through partisan judges.

And conservatives will rage vote for Trump an his Republican buddies no matter what, so we may as well lay it all out there. Conservatives certainly don't spare our feelings in public discourse anymore.

 

[PLizzy]

So how do you vet him for conflict of interest?

They don't.

They couldn't care less.

 

[Chomsky]

What is "Conservative" anymore? Does anybody really know? Oh, I know we can run off a litany of Culture War topics, but those have contradicted themselves so convolutedly of late that I really don't know what they mean anymore, and I'm not sure they do either.

I believe I can spot them on TV, in the forum, and IRL.

For example, Tres Barracios and Cpwill in this forum. In the media I would turn to guys like Charles Krauthammer (recently deceased).

I must admit there aren't many left in Congress, or at least there are not many that speak-up for their principles.

 

[Cardinal]

I believe I can spot them on TV, in the forum, and IRL.

For example, Tres Barracios and Cpwill in this forum. In the media I would turn to guys like Charles Krauthammer (recently deceased).

I must admit there aren't many left in Congress, or at least there are not many that speak-up for their principles.

I'm not talking about the Conservatives of 2016 and earlier (sorry, Tres); I'm talking about now. "Conservatism," whatever that is anymore, is a whole lot darker than what came before it. I didn't even like conservatism before, but at least you could agree on core humanitarian and Democratic principles if nothing else. No longer.

 

[Chomsky]

We have to remember the depth of the depravity being exposed here, not just in Trump but in this entire miserable crew. We are talking about people claiming to have absconded with control of the military on top of everything else. This whole two track Presidency thing is utter and complete craziness. The degree to which you have to be depraved to literally have ripped away the foundation of this Constitutional Republic so that you could pass through your agenda under cover of nursing this crippled man through as President is simply disgusting beyond belief.

This paragraph is an extremely powerful piece of writing. I agree. I thank you for penning it.

:thumbs:

That whoever wrote this piece thought there was some benefit to be gained for writing it, that he would be able to thread this needle of establishing the GOP as the savior of the country from Trump speaks volumes about the GOP. That said, they knew what they were getting in Trump from the very beginning and they knew what they would be doing from the very beginning if he won.

Yep, it's completely bogus and self-serving!

Though we muse about who the author of the op-ed might be, the more I think about it, while there might be one author i am willing to bet this is some sort of an effort mounted by more than one administration official all with the same goal in mind, establishing the GOP as the savior of the country from Trump. Remember, one part of the piece talked about another senior official that told the author about one of his Trump experiences. That person KNOWS who the author is and the author knows he knows. That is one heck of a tell and establishes that there at least two of them in on this op-ed! Does not take much of an imagination to get past two.

In all fairness the person that shared a story with the piece's author, may have shared it with multiple persons. So there many not be the ability to 100% reliably deduce the author by the story sharer.

However, I do think it's possible this person is part of a larger faction, some of whom may be jointly responsible for this piece. I surely hope not.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

I'm not talking about the Conservatives of 2016 and earlier (sorry, Tres); I'm talking about now. "Conservatism," whatever that is anymore, is a whole lot darker than what came before it. I didn't even like conservatism before, but at least you could agree on core humanitarian and Democratic principles if nothing else. No longer.

As liberalism lurches hard left.

 

[Chomsky]

I'm not talking about the Conservatives of 2016 and earlier (sorry, Tres); I'm talking about now. "Conservatism," whatever that is anymore, is a whole lot darker than what came before it. I didn't even like conservatism before, but at least you could agree on core humanitarian and Democratic principles if nothing else. No longer.

For the most part, it's not conservatism though. It's greed manifest as sycophancy to an authoritarian head.