Slashdot Mirror


White House Says Anonymous 'Coward' Behind New York Times Op-Ed Should Resign (freerepublic.com)

Earlier today, The New York Times published an op-ed from an anonymous staffer in the Trump administration, who has "vowed to thwart parts of [President Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations," citing the president's amorality. The staffer writes: "We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous. But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. That is why 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." An anonymous [coward] shares the response from the White House: White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders ripped the anonymous senior White House staffer who wrote an op-ed for The New York Times slamming President Trump's conduct. "The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign," she added. Trump himself called the op-ed's author "gutless." He tweeted: "Does the so-called 'Senior Administration Official' really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

The New York Times op-ed page editor Jim Dao described the process behind publishing the op-ed, telling CNN that the official contacted him "through an intermediary." He said that the New York Times also spoke with the anonymous individual but there are only a "very small number of people within the Times who know this person's identity." Dao didn't provide a gender for the person, but the author was described in a New York Times tweet as a "he" earlier Wednesday. [The Times later said that the tweet was a mistake and that it "was drafted by someone who is not aware of the author's identity."] Furthermore, Dao "said there was no special effort to disguise the person's writing style, for example by rewriting the piece in some fashion," reports CNN. "'There's editing in everything we do,' he said, but it's based on making the person's views 'clearer' and adhering to style standards."

A separate CNN article highlights 12 senior Trump administration officials who may be behind the op-ed.

898 comments

  1. Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been posting on slashdot nonstop, wasn't me

    1. Re:Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the Anonymous Coward who wrote this.

    2. Re:Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spartacus?

    3. Re:Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the Anonymous Coward who wrote this!

    4. Re:Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, stop impersonating me!

    5. Re:Impossible by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      No, I'm Cowardicus!

    6. Re:Impossible by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Wow, nice.... all the AC jokes bundled together, right at the top.... convenient!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    7. Re:Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your case, it's pronounced Poo-litzer Prize!

    8. Re: Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mike Pence's Steam account is on point I hear. 700 hrs on Shower w/your Dad Simulator.

    9. Re:Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, I plan to be able to retired in 2020. I told you creimertards how to do it but no, you were to smart to listen!

      I find AmazonTM the gretest thing since sliced bread and helps taking care of my health at retirement with the Amazon long tail revenue streams!

      All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. You can even make video of yourself going to pick up AmazonTM parcel at the convenience store and post it on your youtube channel for more redundant revenue streams.

      They also have a wide supply, the best of latte and clif/power bars at the best cost, espicially if you make a friend buy them for you with your own affiliate link!

      Also, I still use my iPhone 6s and reduce my monthly bill from $80 to $50. As a phone and a video camera, the iPhone 6s isn't obsolete and I use it to make my videos on youtube. As a Sprint very special customer for 20+ years, Sprint will always give me a new iPhone for free if I decide to stop using the 6s as a phone in the next several years.

      I use PhotoShop daily!

      I have a hearing loss in one ear, so my audio will always be suspect. I use a Zoom H2 audio recorder with a pop filter 12" away from my mouth, Audacity to clean up and normalize the audio, and sync the audio to the video and apply a "voice enhancement" eq to the audio in the video editor.

      My PC has an eight-core processor and a Nvidia 1050 Ti 4GB video card. A minute of 1080p video renedered on the processor takes a minute. A minute of 1080p video rendered on the Nvidia card takes 10 seconds. I don't think an iPad has the same performance of my PC for rendering videos longer than a short clip.

      I can't imagine using Photoshop without a keyboard and mouse, or not being able to access my files from my file server. Video rendering on the iPad will probably suck donkey balls.

      Blackmagic also charges high prices for their gear as Apple does. Need an HDMI to USB3 capture device? Blackmagic is $300. Any generic company is $50.

      I take public transit. A local bus take me down the street to pick up the express bus, the express bus drops me off in Palo Alto, and a local bus take me down the street to my job. An hour each way. Driving through Palo Alto during rush hour is insane. Since I work in government I.T., I start work at 7:00AM.

      Bonus: get some silver coins, view recommendations on my special Youtube channel dedicated to the topic! They constitute a fail-safe insurance strategy for your retirement!
      --
      Demogorgon (Stranger Things) Live Unveil Panel Montage - ToyXpo 2018

    10. Re:Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im more of a Spartacus than a certain Senator we know of

  2. Yes, they should by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit. Either get out and berate them publicly, or work for the interests of who you are working for.

    For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets. So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes, they should by Krishnoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      or work for the interests of who you are working for.

      The American people?

    2. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So instead you propose what? Have no one grownups in the room?

    3. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit.

      -

      Often I disagree with your posts, but this time I am 100% in agreement.

      The anonymous guy is the worst kind of scum.

      If he was working for me, I'd do my best to make sure alligators feasted on him, while he was still alive.

    4. Re:Yes, they should by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit.

      The employer is the US government, not the president. Federal employees take an oath to support and defend the constitution.

    5. Re:Yes, they should by Krishnoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, here's their agenda, plus some background. It was linked to in the summary.

    6. Re:Yes, they should by NEW22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would this push anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats? Are you imagining a White House full of secret Democrats? The people in the Woodward book, or this op ed, etc. are staffers for the President, a Republican president who chose his own poison, as far as who works for (or against him) inside the White House. These are Republicans trying to contain a blowhard nut. There is nothing about that that is unethical on Democrats' part.

    7. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The author's behavior of circumventing, ignoring the duly elected president does set a bad precedent. That said, their oaths of office were not to the President, but to the Constitution. It is clear that the author believes Trump is a danger to the constitution. Furthermore, he may believe that his replacement---should he have signed his name to the op-ed---would have done harm to the Constitution and the republic.
      That said, he should have signed his name to the document, even if this, ultimately, is on congress for failing to check a president that acts unhinged.

    8. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big difference between making widgets for SEO to run on IoT Linux Based Devices and running a country.

      Which is more effective: working internally for good— which in the INTFA the person is doing or— quitting and filling up the 24 hour news cycle with another talking head? Whoever this is would have had a much better career path resigning and going to any news agency. They have conviction, not dollar signs, and whether true or not, they are doing the right thing.

    9. Re:Yes, they should by fredrated · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing he validated is the utter stupidity of our president. Anyone that votes for the GOP based on this is a fool, and yes the GOP is populated by fools. Anyone else will flee the Republican Party.

    10. Re:Yes, they should by Krishnoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, Clinton is actually who they voted for, within some piddly margin of error, anyway.

    11. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The government the American people elected. Deep state operatives tell you they're working for the American people, but in fact, they think we're scum. Scratch a member of the DC establishment, and you find a would-be aristocrat who loathes the sight, the sound and the smell of common folk. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30027384-what-washington-gets-wrong

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Yes, they should by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.

      Except the senior administration officials were people he hired. It's not the "Deep State" if you're the dummy who hired them. Then again, were you looking for the truth or just someone to blame for this clusterfuck presidency?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    13. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

      Boy, with hate-filled attitudes like that, you're certainly going to get people to vote for you.

      It was precisely this contempt and bile for the people that got Trump into office in the first place. Apparently you have learned nothing. Here's something that bears repeating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      Once upon a time I was a liberal. Well, to be honest, less than a year ago I was still a liberal. I became a liberal because I felt I'd found a tribe whose values aligned with my own.

      I staunchly reject racism of any kind. I reject the marginalization of any human being based off of their gender or sexual orientation. I reject tyrannical groupthink. I reject a system which allows an ambitious, misinformed, and dogmatic mob to suppress free speech, create false narratives, and then apathetically steamroll over the truth. I reject the acceptance of junk science and superstition to advance ideological agendas. I reject hate.

      These are the reasons I became a liberal.

      And these are the same reasons why I am now walking away.

      For years now, I have watched as the left has devolved into intolerant, inflexible, illogical, hateful, misguided, ill-informed, Un-American, hypocritical, menacing, callous, ignorant, narrow-minded, and at times blatantly fascistic behavior and rhetoric. Liberalism has been co-opted and absorbed by the very characteristics it claims to fight against.

      I have watched for years as people on the left have become anesthetized to their own prejudices and bigotry and the prejudices and bigotry of those around them who echo their values.

      I have watched as formerly sensible people, who claim to reject racism, have come to embrace the principles of hating and universally blaming all of societies problems on all people who have white skin.

      I have witnessed the irony of advocacy for gender equality morphing into blatant hatred and intolerance of men and masculinity.

      I have seen the once-earnest fight for equality for the LGBT community mutate into an illogical demonization of heteronormativity, and the push to attack and vilify our conventional concepts of gender. These same self-proclaimed victims of intolerance now turning on the gay community that they attached themselves to to further their agenda- now calling gay people "privileged" and themselves "victims" of injustice.

      I have watched as the left has willingly allowed themselves to become hypnotized by false narratives and conclusions, perpetuated by social justice warriors who intentionally misrepresent and misconstrue facts, evidence, and events to confirm their own biases that everybody who does not comply with their prejudicial conclusions and follow their orders is a racist, a bigot, a nazi, a white supremacist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic- an "alt-right extremist".

      And I have watched as they used these heartless and carelessly assigned labels to intimidate, threaten, bully, silence, attack, unemploy, black list, and destroy anybody who dares to fight back.

      They'll come for me⦠and then they'll come for you.

      And worst of all, The Democratic Party and the liberal media has embraced, affirmed, aided and abetted this cult ideology. In an effort to gain voters and maintain power the Democratic Party that I once loved has joined forces with the extremist left. The Democratic Party and the liberal media now believe their own ill-gotten conclusions and have ominously decided that they and only they know the remedy for society ills.

      The left has decided that the solution to problems with race relations in America⦠is MORE racism.

      The left believes that attacking, insulting, and dehumanizing one group of people elevates another.

      The left now believes that there are no boundaries when telling lies, omitting the truth, or misrepresenting facts while reporting the news, because their end justifies their means.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    14. Re:Yes, they should by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This guy says he is not deep state. He is a Trump appointee. He's a new zealot that Trump brought in. He believes in what he believes is Trump's agenda (after all - who really knows because Trump intentionally keeps it unpredictable).

      This is what you get when you surround yourself with doe-eyed "believers" instead of professionals prepared to execute directions using the complex mechanisms of State that few without years of experience can wield professionally and effectively.

      This is what you get when you replace the "deep state" professionals with party-affiliated zealots.

    15. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing he validated is the utter stupidity of our president. Anyone that votes for the GOP based on this is a fool, and yes the GOP is populated by fools. Anyone else will flee the Republican Party.

      Your belief that things can be reduced to such simplistic terms as you describe above, marks you as a simple-minded idiot.

    16. Re:Yes, they should by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      A state within a state or a deep state is a political situation in a country when an internal organ ("deep state"), such as the armed forces or public authorities (intelligence agencies, police, secret police, administrative agencies, and branches of government bureaucracy), does not respond to the civilian political leadership.

      So this guy is the military, or the police, or an intelligence agency? That's quite a feat for this disgruntled mini-Trump... (Or Trump within a Trump, or a Deep Trump, if you prefer that.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:Yes, they should by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the election is decided...by all the people of America

      Well in this case, it clearly didn't work out that way.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Well, Clinton is actually who they voted for [cnn.com], within some piddly margin of error, anyway.

      Sir/Madam,

      Point 1. The year is now 2018. While it may still feel like 2016 in your head, I can assure you, that time progresses, even while in your basement. Please join us.

      Point 2. The U.S.A. is Representative Democracy, not a direct democracy.

      Point 3. The voter participation in a representative democracy is not necessarily a random sample of the population. One may not assume that a direct democratic vote would be the same as a combined vote tally in a representative/electoral system.

      Imagine voters that stayed home in California, New York, Texas, and other states because their "vote would not count"?

      The point is it was not a direct democracy, and no-one could predict the result of such a imaginary scenario.

    19. Re:Yes, they should by nonBORG · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So working against the President voted in by the people is working for the people?

      As above this is what deep state is, we know what you need better than you do forget voting, forget justice this is a utilitarian overlord.

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    20. Re:Yes, they should by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit. Either get out and berate them publicly, or work for the interests of who you are working for.

      If my "employer" appears to be unbalanced, and has the authority to start World War III, I just might be inclined to do a little undermining for the sake of the planet and the human race.

      For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.

      I think what you overlook is the fact that Trump hand-picked all of these people, and he has bragged frequently of his superior judgement at picking talent.

      If, as you say, he wound up surrounding himself wit a "deep state" then either:

            (a) it puts the lie to his hiring judgement; or
            (b) he's so unhinged that even the people on his own team try to stop him from causing real damage to the world.

      I'm inclined to think a little of both.

      [...] I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.

      In your wet dreams. Have you read the op-ed?

      Setting aside its erudite and eloquent style -- hardly qualities one would expect of Trump -- its content is hardly the kind of commentary Trump would ever allow to be said of him. He's hyper-controlling of his image. He would never allow a negative op-ed to be written if he had any control over it. "False-flag" op-eds are just not something he's into. If he needs to write more than 280 characters, he's just not interested.

      Some telling excerpts from the end of the op-ed:

      This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

      Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

      The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

      Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

      We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

      Do you really think Trump would write something that lauds the late Senator John McCain?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    21. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are acting like those gansta wannabes who think loyalty and honor is only when people serve them only and don't care about even of the good of the organization or some bros who think there's some guy code that allows them to do what ever they want.

      When your president is acting like a kindengarden kid, the loyalty is to the gen pop, not to the president. The good of the country, not some person.

    22. Re:Yes, they should by jensend · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Note that less than half of the GOP voted for Trump in the primaries - even though by the time of the later primaries most of the other candidates had bowed out.

      There are plenty of Republicans who didn't want this President, and painting all of us with that brush is just as foolish as the prejudiced tweets from the Blowhard-In-Chief.

      We have got to fix the broken election systems in the US. People keep blaming the Electoral College, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is first-past-the-post plurality voting. In any of the early primaries, Trump would have lost every single head-to-head matchup, so any decent electoral system (i.e. any kind of Condorcet preference balloting) would have avoided this disaster. (Easy explanation from a Nobel winner here.) As long as we keep first-past-the-post primaries, both parties will frequently nominate miserable candidates.

    23. Re:Yes, they should by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right?

      What is the relevance?

      What's the point of attempting to placate conspiracy whacknuts even if you could?

      I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.

      Deep state is conspiracy involving government "professionals" whose jobs do not change when administrations do. Applying it to members of your own administration you hire yourself is utter nonsense.

      What it actually is with totality of insiders speaking out is an indicator of profound lack of leadership and associated failure of president to secure necessary legitimacy to effectively do his job.

      Blame and responsibility for such failure rests squarely on the presidents shoulders.

    24. Re:Yes, they should by multi+io · · Score: 2

      If Trump's major decisions can be influenced by secretly putting or removing papers from his desk, he's at the whim of unelected staffers anyway and has no workable independent "policy" that he'd pursue. And that notion is exactly in line with what we've heard about the guy before -- that he is constantly swayed by whatever person he last talked to.

    25. Re:Yes, they should by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit.

      In a sense, undermining his agenda is part of their job.
      He puts his foot in his mouth, and then his staff gets to work putting out a statement saying he meant the opposite.
      And these are the extremely conservative people who think that, for example, putting babies in cages is a good idea.

    26. Re:Yes, they should by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      delete your account you trash.

    27. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm a Bernie Bro who's butthurt that not enough primary voters voted for *MY* favorite candidate for him to win the nomination. I'm going to support trump now. And I'm happy to see the whole country burn, because I didn't get my way."

      Fixed that for you.

    28. Re:Yes, they should by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      There are plenty of Republicans who didn't want this President, and painting all of us with that brush is just as foolish as the prejudiced tweets from the Blowhard-In-Chief.

      Did you vote for him? If so, all you are doing is attempting to deflect from your own culpability.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    29. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you pull this "you made me hit you" crap with your spouse as well? This whole "liberals are mean so we voted for an insane narcissist" narrative is getting old.

    30. Re:Yes, they should by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      And if the author is Mike Pence?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    31. Re:Yes, they should by vk2sky · · Score: 2

      Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit. Either get out and berate them publicly, or work for the interests of who you are working for.

      As others have pointed out, White house officials are not Donal Trump's personal minions, they are employees of the US government.

      I would be interested in Henry Kissinger's on the matter. I'll just leave this here: https://www.wearethemighty.com...

    32. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kind of blind, docile "loyalty" you apparently think should be the norm is what enables dictators to overtake democracies. Perhaps you actually prefer a dictatorship, but if you don't you might want to reconsider your position on this.

    33. Re:Yes, they should by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit.

      Donald Trump is not the "employer" of the senior officials in the White House. We are.

      And the anonymous senior official who wrote this op-ed (hint: his initials are "Mike Pence") believes that by circumventing this degenerate president, he is protecting our interests. It's exactly the kind of self-serving bullshit that you would expect from someone Trump hired. What you're seeing is the beginning stages of the GOP's exit strategy from the Trump Situation. Expect to see it reach fruition once Kavanaugh is sworn in. They can see the writing on the wall and it's in orange crayon mixed with feces.

      I was just kidding about #Anonymous being Mike Pence, by the way. the op-ed didn't mention God or the fact that single women's vaginas have sharp teeth and are capable of swallowing a Christian man whole. But don't worry, we're going to find out who the anonymous official is within the next few days. Oh, these are fun times to be an American. And mark this down: Donald J. Trump will never stand for re-election. His roof is on fire and the GOP is chaining all the doors shut from the outside.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:Yes, they should by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

      . Scratch a member of the DC establishment, and you find a would-be aristocrat who loathes the sight, the sound and the smell of common folk.

      Be careful, when you scratch them, you might come away with a lot of orange fake tan under your fingernails:

      "Trump said to a White House staff secretary, about the Attorney General, “This guy is mentally retarded. He’s this dumb Southerner. ... He couldn’t even be a one-person country lawyer down in Alabama.”

      https://www.newyorker.com/news...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but by all the people of America and some Russians.

      FTFY

    36. Re:Yes, they should by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In fairness to Trump it should be noted that during the debates he stressed that the elections were rigged. So he gave us fair warning.

    37. Re:Yes, they should by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The American people?

      If this person REALLY cared about the American People, they would resign and publicly speak out against Donald Trump and openly disclose "Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses."

      This person is just a coward who wants to keep collecting their paycheck while pretending to be the hero. It's the classic "Oh, I'll still collect my big paycheck from the corrupt corporation/government every week, sure. But....I'm undermining them from within you see..." argument made by the spineless toadies of every criminal, dictator, etc. in the world when someone calls them out for aiding and abetting. Maybe it helps them sleep at night, but no one in their right mind buys their bullshit.

      Trump is right, either resign and truly stand up for your convictions, or do your fucking job.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    38. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      delete your account you trash.

      I am disappointed that the OP is not from Anonymous Coward.

    39. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Every prior presidential election was decided using the same rules. Changing the rule requires a constitutional amendment. I just wish all the people complaining about the President understood that the position of President has very little power. Congress controls the government checkbook and can cut funding to any presidential initiative. Even decisions made as Commander in Chief. A president can launch a war without approval from any other branch of the government but the president has 90 days to justify his actions to congress at which time Congress could defund the military operation. The only thing the inept legislative branch of government cooperates on is pointing the protesters in another direction. Trump had nothing to do with the current immigration laws. All he did was enforce the law created and passed by Congress. Even maintaining the DACA program was not Trump's job. He sent the issue to Congress so they could formalize the and turn the program into congressionally approved laws. Trump gave Congress 14 months to address the issue and as usual they did nothing. The only laws Congress takes seriously are the ones protecting their positions. They enjoy no term limits and no limit on the amount of cash funneled into political campaigns. And all those who have hounded Trump since he was elected are ready and willing to break any law to remove him from office. The ends justify the means is the motto of the Trump protesters. In their world Trump doesn't deserve the same constitutional rights as everyone else. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him. The right to protect against self incrimination doesn't apply. And Trump will be gone within a few years and the people who lost to him in the election have refused to examine the real reasons Trump won the election. The raging mobs don't understand what the electoral college is designed for and it also appears they don't understand the length of presidential terms. They act as if Trump is an emperor who has unlimited powers. Using the Russians to hide poorly constructed political platforms is about the best they can do. They have also not reflected on the fact that as bad as Trump is just how bad did the other side need to be to lose?

    40. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We" neither hire nor fire senior officials in the white house. I've never seen their names on a federal election ballot. They are hired by the executive branch being _White House_ officials and all.

    41. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you pull this "you made me hit you" crap with your spouse as well? This whole "liberals are mean so we voted for an insane narcissist" narrative is getting old.

      This is the left. Six minutes of reasoned points with evidence (within the video) and their rebuttal is a spin on the old "Did you stop beating your wife?" joke/ad hominem.

      The left no longer have any valid points to argue with.

    42. Re:Yes, they should by jensend · · Score: 1

      No. I voted for Kasich in the primary. In the general election I voted third party, and in my state enough of us were disgusted by Trump that the third party candidate was actually leading the polls for a time until last minute desperate disinformation campaigns from the two major parties.

      As to why many others around the country nevertheless turned around and voted for Trump in the general election, of course some thought Trump would do less harm than Hillary as chief executive, but that's not all of it. Many people figured that they would be willing to take an executive they disliked if it meant their party would have a better chance at choosing more of the nine unelected unaccountable robed lifetime dictators. That's one of the unfortunate consequences of the activist decisions the Supreme Court has made during the last couple decades.

    43. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right?

      The claim behind the "deep state" is that its a secret group of people appointed by the obama administration working to undermine trump. This isn't "deep state" in that sense. This is trumps own appointees working to undermine him (possibly even pence who is elected and by virtue of that is by definition not deep state).

    44. Re: Yes, they should by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      If Trump was voted for out of spite then it just confirms the stupidity of the people having voted for him - only the stupid vote for such a stupid reason.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    45. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But of course! One post by an AC on Slashdot absolutely speaks for all of "the left". It's definitely proof that everyone you disagree has no other points to make. Argument over!!!

      I'm glad you've convinced yourself.

    46. Re:Yes, they should by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      "We" neither hire nor fire senior officials in the white house. I've never seen their names on a federal election ballot. They are hired by the executive branch being _White House_ officials and all.

      Do you work for the company you work for or do you work for your dopey mmediate supervisor (who hires and fires)? The executive branch can't decide who makes what, and they can't give bonuses. In the case of cabinet secretaries and heads of certain agencies, all they can do is nominate, and it's up to Congress to confirm or reject. It's also up to Congress to set the pay scale and in the case of a degenerate who should rise to the level of Chief Executive, throw his flabby ass out into the street.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    47. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this have to do with the Democratic Party? Or does a betrayal by a Republican further cement the GOP's shift to the far right?

    48. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, except the govt isn't a business, and so that logic doesn't apply. I want people in the govt to leak, etc; because it shows you that this president doesn't give a shit about the press. There is also the added benefit that it's unabridged straight from the houses mouth, because as we know the current president does nothing but lie to the public, then have the land whale Sarah Sanders cover for his bullshit. This guy needs to be removed from office. This is absolutely disgusting.

    49. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many tyrants and incompetents ave excused their behavior with "the people voted for me".
      Trump is the PHB from Dilbert with more power and malice.

    50. Re:Yes, they should by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      or work for the interests of who you are working for.

      The American people?

      While it pains me greatly to say this, here's the problem with that and this:

      ... anonymous staffer in the Trump administration, who has "vowed to thwart parts of [President Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations," citing the president's amorality. ... we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

      Like it or not, Trump was elected President -- Trump -- not the staffers and/or cabinet members *protecting* us from Trump. They are not the President; they should not be running the Administrative Branch. If they really think Trump is unfit, they should exercise the 25th Amendment (as they apparently discussed) and try to declare Trump unfit to be President, not play babysitter and try to take away his pen and toys. (Not that VP Pence would be any better...) Otherwise, the people who voted for Trump need to experience the consequences of their actions. Ya, it'll suck for *everyone*, but that's Democracy. Maybe we'll learn to not make the same fucking stupid mistake again.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    51. Re:Yes, they should by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Presidential appointees are not deep state, as far as I understand the conspiracy meaning of that new term. Deep state refers to the permanent bureaucracy and not the appointees who come and go.

      As Trump does't understand, oaths of office are for loyalty to the country and not to any particular person.

      Why would this have anything to do with the Democrats? This anonymous person may be Republican as he/she has said that some of Trump's policies were good. But only an idiot would back Trump 100% in all his crazy ideas, and it would be absurd to say that someone who doesn't back Trump's crazy ideas must be a Democrat.

      Trump could not have penned this because it's far too articulate.

    52. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the known liar? Where is the proof? Oh yeah, doesn't actually exist.

    53. Re:Yes, they should by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.

      Actually, no. The Deep State (conspiracy) refers to "the career bureaucracy of government" who are "who are relatively permanent and whose policies and long-term plans are unaffected by changing administrations." This anonymous op-ed was from someone within The White House itself, and is most likely a staffer or member of the Cabinet, as are the people involved in the described Trump babysitting -- all brought in and/or appointed by the Administration itself. So this is exactly opposite of the "deep state".

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    54. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What deep state arreyou referring to? Would that be the GOP one or the Trump appointee one? Or the false flag one?

    55. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Democrats are left? When did this happen? They are just not as right.

    56. Re:Yes, they should by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Um, I think you are referring to the electoral college, because the people of America by a majority voted for a different candidate. But the electoral college doesn't always reflect the will of the people and it was not designed to do so. Being a republic or not is unrelated to this issue.

      To be fair though, the candidates presumably campaigned with the assumption of winning the electoral college vote and not to win the majority vote. So Hillary lost fair and square according to the agreed upon rules, even if it did not agree with will of the people of America.

    57. Re:Yes, they should by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      One conspiracy theory suggests that it might be, although the same article does provide some pretty compelling arguments why it probably isn't as well. Specifically, while "Lodestar" is an unusual word used by the author and also on multiple occassions by Mike Pence, the author also claims to use idioms used by other staffers to obfuscate. Quite brilliant really, given how mercurial and suspicious Trump can be, as lashing out at Pence would only serve to further the authors objective of showing how disfunctional they think Trump's inner circle is.

      Either way, if it does come to the 25th, Trump's supporters are going to go *nuts* about a coup if it succeeds and Pence takes the oath. Never mind buying popcorn, I'm going to be buying stock in popcorn *suppliers*.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    58. Re:Yes, they should by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had fully expected the Republican party to start fracturing after Trump won the primaries and then the presidency. I was surprised when the majority of his Republican critics turned around and started toadying up to him. I wonder if after the midterms and their jobs are safe for awhile longer if they dare to criticize again, but as unpredictable as things have been I'm probably wrong.

      And you can't fix the first-past-the-post system without changing the constitution, and that's highly unlikely. What you want is a change in the electorate to start favoring more moderates and centrists even in the primaries. California has a system now where the top two winners of primaries advance to the general election, even if from the same party. Hasn't been around long though so it's unclear if this will make a clear difference in the long run. Given that both major parties bitterly opposed it, it's probably a good idea.

      And I have come to the conclusion after several decades, that loyalty to a political party is the biggest vice in America.

    59. Re:Yes, they should by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Also, the 25th amendment allows for the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare the president unfit for office, after which congress decides what to do. Which in a roundabout way implies that these cabinet appointees do have the power to undermine the president, at least as a group.

    60. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each state can award it's electoral votes any way it chooses, this is on the constition. Maine adopted instant run off, a flawed system compared to Condorcet but marginally better than first past the post. You don't need an amendment this could happen now, except the two parties would never allow it.

    61. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happened over the past 30 or so years as part of repeated message. Basically anything that is slightly right of Reagan is considered "extreme Left" in the US (which absolutely makes no sense). The most "Left" person that is prominent is Sanders, and the Norwegians are "aww how cute, he calls himself a Democratic Socialist."

    62. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit.

      But not unexpected.

      The request for him to resign is based on the idea that it is a patriotic actor and that he should resign because that would be best for the country.

      It isn't hard to imagine that foreign state actors are trying to have intelligence officers working in the government administration just to get good intel on what the government is up to.
      In those cases you have a malicious actor and expecting them to voluntarily resign is just foolish.
      That means that it is absolutely vital that POTUS is capable of bringing in trustworthy people instead of just whatever criminal power hungry person he can find.

      If POTUS isn't capable of finding and firing malicious actors who are bold enough to make themselves known then you can bet that there are a dozen more flying under the radar.

      How about resigning and letting someone competent take care of the nation?

      you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right?

      You do realize that the person is a guy hired by Trump, not someone put there by Obama or Hillary, right?
      There have been a lot of speculation about who this anonymous staffer could be and most people guess either Pence or Mattis.

    63. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Assuming this person even exists. I doubt it both because nobody can be that clandestine in the White House without being detected especially after bragging about it, and the truthfulness of the media outlets in question is, well, questionable at best.

      There's just too strong a possibility of this being, intentionally or not, a fake news NYT/CNN hit piece. Let's not forget how easily they've been trolled by this administration and its supporters before. They blindly fall for anything that they think will hurt the President and they look like idiots most of the time.

      If this person really does exist, then what you have here is a classic example of someone who just knows better than the elected President of the United States. Think about that. You might really hate the President right now. I've strongly disliked a few. You're allowed even though I think you're wrong. But if this person really does exist, you have here someone who just KNOWS that he or she is better than the elected President of the United States, and that person is damned well going to do whatever she or he knows is just and right and holy and everyone else in the nation be damned because they're doing their moral equivalent of God's work here and that simply cannot be questioned. Any necessary means are justified, everything they do is proper and above reproach, and anyone who questions any of that is just a racist and all the other words the left uses that have lost all meaning now.

      This is the kind of person you want subverting the country? Really? Think about that because if you normalize it--well, it stands to reason that someone more to your liking will eventually be elected President and when that happens do you really want my side doing the same thing back at you? Frankly history shows we're better at it, and we'll have all the moral justification we'll need after people putting up with this.

    64. Re:Yes, they should by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      It was precisely this contempt and bile for the people that got Trump into office in the first place

      Um, no. It was a racist and fake-news fueled backlash against Obama, who (for the record) didn't need to be "handled" by his staffers like you-know-who.

    65. Re:Yes, they should by dave420 · · Score: 1

      This isn't "deep state" - it's one person. Get a grip.

    66. Re:Yes, they should by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You realise that with this "that sort of language caused people to vote for X" logic is you're saying those people incredibly easily swayed in who they vote for, and can flip positions based on name calling. That's not democracy - that's a sham.

    67. Re:Yes, they should by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      There are different types of anonymous sources. The most common ones are official sources whose message would be discredited if their names would be public but they wouldn't suffer repercussions.
      Then there are anonymous sources who do fear repercussions. It's easy to demand they go public and suffer the consequences but it's not reasonable.These are legitimate anonymous sources.
      This guy is somewhere in between. Would probably be fired but has a lot of establishment backing so would be unlikely to suffer much.

    68. Re:Yes, they should by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I like Deep Trump. It's politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.

    69. Re:Yes, they should by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I'm a Bernie Bro who's butthurt that not enough primary voters voted for *MY* favorite candidate for him to win the nomination. I'm going to support trump now. And I'm happy to see the whole country burn, because I didn't get my way."

      Fixed that for you.

      This is what the Russians were going for with their information warfare campaign, although they were not necessarily interested in getting Bernie voters to flip for Trump (that's hard to achieve) as they were to get those voters to stay home and not vote at all (easier to achieve). Quoting the link:

      The indictment mentions that the Russian accounts were meant to embed with and emulate “radical” groups. The content was not designed to persuade people to change their views, but to harden those views. Confirmation bias is powerful and commonly employed in these kinds of psychological operations (a related Soviet concept is “reflexive control”—applying pressure in ways to elicit a specific, known response). The intention of these campaigns was to activate—or suppress—target groups. Not to change their views, but to change their behavior

      By the radical groups there they mean both the Trump and Bernie camps, both because those groups had the largest existing online reach (and thus, were they easiest to target) but also because you could pretty effectively use the same kind of anti-Clinton messaging to target both. So they wanted at the same time to get people who don't usually vote but are pissed at the status quo ('Drain the swamp', 'Lock her up', etc.) to go out and vote for Trump and to get people who usually vote for the democrats to stay home ('Bernie or bust', 'Walk away', etc,).

      Whether or not it made a definitive difference to the election results is not really knowable at this point, because the effectiveness of such campaigns is hard to measure, but keeping in mind that the amount of votes in the key states that flipped the result to Trump was what, around 30 000 it's definitely a possibility.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    70. Re:Yes, they should by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The anonymous guy is the worst kind of scum.

      If he was working for me, I'd do my best to make sure alligators feasted on him, while he was still alive.

      Do you not think that maybe that is part of the problem? :|

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    71. Re:Yes, they should by gtall · · Score: 1

      The term "Deep State" probably arose in Turkey to reference whatever friction the government thought it was experiencing. It is a way of creating a straw man so you can convince your followers of its existence and that only you can save them from the "Deep State". Overblown potentates the world over have since used the term. And now we have one of those all to ourselves in the U.S.

      Hint: Believing a lie is never a recipe for success.

    72. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was precisely this contempt and bile for the people that got Trump into office in the first place

      Um, no. It was a racist and fake-news fueled backlash against Obama, who (for the record) didn't need to be "handled" by his staffers like you-know-who.

      G. W. Bush?

      Let's face it: for quite a while at least acting Republican presidents have been tools. George H.W. Bush at least wasn't a moron but, akin to Carter, not quite able to get through to his administration. The only saving grace for Reagan was that his replacement would have been Dan Quayle. Ford was lack-lustre (and not actually elected), Nixon was actually strong but unhinged. The Republicans could have made do with more people of Eisenhower's calibre.

      But for some reason, the inner-party dynamics as well as the actual elections tend to gravitate to Republican candidates prone to manipulation (some lost elections had actually respectable candidates).

    73. Re:Yes, they should by gtall · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My suspicion is that the high approval among Republicans of Trump is because many of the normal people have left the Republican Party. Name one policy the Republican Party stands for beside more guns and pollution for everybody?

    74. Re:Yes, they should by Escogido · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, and the American people already made their minds up when they elected Trump a president.

    75. Re:Yes, they should by gtall · · Score: 1

      Kissinger sold his soul long ago, Satan is merely waiting to collect.

    76. Re:Yes, they should by dwillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not in 30 of the 51 separate elections. A nationwide popular vote total is irrelevant, we don't vote as a single body nationwide but in 50 states and the DC we vote in 51 separate elections and in 30 of those states he won, giving him the electoral votes for a rather substantial victory.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    77. Re:Yes, they should by gtall · · Score: 1

      And this Congress is going to throw out the hobby horse they've been riding to more conservative judges, more pollution all around, more money for their donors? I don't think so.

    78. Re:Yes, they should by gtall · · Score: 1

      The GOP chaining the doors? I don't think so. That little squit Lindsay Graham has already sold his soul to Trump. The rest of the southern Senators couldn't even be arsed to sing anything more than "Ain't that a shame" after the report of Trump's slur of Sessions. Mind you, Sessions is not a respectable pol or even a man. This is the same bastard who would plant ringers in his "hearings" on global warming, generally some whack job professors with academic credentials but no qualifying backgrounds. The man reflects Trump's criteria for office: dishonorable, unAmerican, willing to use the federal government to go after enemies, self-centered egotistical bigot. The only thing that saved Sessions from backing Trump on Mueller was that he had been caught lying in Senate hearings and didn't want to hurt himself further.

    79. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

      Whataboutism. You did not refute anything that was said, you just tried to change the subject.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    80. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? We crucify whistleblowers in this country.

    81. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, racism and fake news. That's the only way anyone would have ever voted that way.

      You still don't get why Trump won. The sheer level of insufferable arrogance from upper-middle class liberals that dominate internet discussion is a massive reason why. A huge part of why nationalism (whether it's Trump or Brexit or populist parties Swedish Democrats in Sweden, Front Nationale in France, and others throughout Europe) is seeing such a surge in support is in opposition to the CONSTANT liberal circlejerking in the media and refusal to even consider that the working class isn't a bunch of idiotic, evil racists, but bases its vote on real world experiences that they go through and rational self interest.

      They are sick and tired of sneering upper middle class liberals scaremongering about anybody who isn't part of the political establishment and being called racists for wanting to maintain a national sovereignty and set of values. They are sick and tired of being told they don't know whats best for them by young people who have never experienced Britain before the EU. People are sick and tired of ad hominems being the dominant form of discourse from the left whenever issues relating to protecting our national borders and culture come up. They are sick and tired of their acquaintances screaming on Facebook UNFRIEND ME IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP YOU RACIST BIGOT.

      The entire mendacious edifice built around shaming people who dissent against the PC orthodoxy of cultural relativism and globalism is doing nothing but backfiring on the left all over the world, and will continue to do so. The upper class journalism/media types who tend to lean left, and liberals in New York who don't see a problem with globalism are the types of people who aren't affected by it like the native working class. They get to live in gated communities and in expensive apartments surrounded by other upper-middle class liberals, and don't have to interact with those Muslim migrants who are completely unwilling to assimilate into Western culture like the working class who lives around them.

      They also aren't as affected by the complete gutting of industrial jobs, the massive increases in real estate prices completely pricing average Americans out of their home ownership or the huge pressure on the labor market and welfare system by lax immigration policies. It's easy to pat yourself on the back and circlejerk how cosmopolitan and tolerant you are for supporting virtue signalling policies when they don't directly affect you, and call everyone who dissents a bigot. The multicultural utopian worldview would quickly collapse when faced with the reality that working class people deal with, and perhaps maybe then they wouldn't just dismiss their perfectly valid concerns. And maybe the left may start seeing the votes not constantly slip away into the arms of populists who at least listen to these concerns, instead of demonizing them.

      And until all of the professional class elitists get their head out of their little bubble and get in touch with what matters to the common man, we will continue coming out to the voting booth and burning your entire globalist establishment to the fucking ground.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    82. Re:Yes, they should by dwillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Easier, just close the early primaries. The first half dozen or so Primaries set the race. To get the nomination you have to get the early momentum.

      In the early elections Trump won the early primaries in Open primary states and Lost big time in closed Republican only primaries.

      As a primary election is for the members of a party to choose the candidate they want to represent him it makes no sense at all to ever have an open primary. It should be those registered as members of that primary, and those willing to register (even on election day) as part of the party, but it should not be open to the general voting populace.

      Voter tallies in early states indicate that many Democrats crossed party lines to vote for Trump in the open primaries. The opposing party voted for the worst candidate in large numbers in those open primaries.

      That gave Trump the crucial early wins that gave him the momentum towards nomination. By the time most primaries remaining were in closed primary states it was a three man race between Trump, Cruz (who was hated even more by the establishment GOP) and Idiot boy Kasich (who never stood a chance but stayed in to deny Cruz votes that could have swung the nomination to him or at least to a contested convention at which he likely would have won the nomination).

      We don't need to redo the voting system so drastically, just close the primaries to registered members of the parties. The left managed to swing the GOP nomination to the worst of the candidates, but their own was still so bad he beat her easily. I certainly didn't vote for him in the Primaries, but in the general election, he was the far better option and I had no qualms about voting for him.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    83. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American people voted for the president. They did not vote for this deep state activist.

    84. Re: Yes, they should by orlanz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please mod parent UP. I don't know about the numbers, but this is a nice concise explanation of our voting system.

      Every election someone brings up the "popular vote" BS. It's a total waste of time that the ants run all over. Shame on the media for lighting and fanning the topic each election.

    85. Re:Yes, they should by dwillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those "hired by Trump" are most often just those who had the position in the last administration as well. For the most part only the top most Cabinet secretaries and those just under that level are replaced (example Deputy Rosenstein in the Justice Dept.). Many senior officials just under that level are basically given a quick interview and as long as they don't state they refuse to work for the new President, they are hired for the same job they had under the prior administration.

      So yes this is still Deep State. At least until the coward identifies their self so we can see what position they actually hold and when they actually started working in their position.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    86. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buahahahahahahahahaaaa! You're so fucking pathetic. The orange faggot is toast. Suck it. =) =)

    87. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People won't admit failure or learn from it. It's not the first time administrators disagree with leaders. Usually, the people working on the floor is more correct in their assessments of the situation, and leaders should listen to their employees.

    88. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually it can be changed to plurality voting without an amendment. There is a metabill that many states have made bills from- it basically says "this state will assign its electoral votes in accordance with the nationwide popular voted when more than half of electoral votes worth of states pass a bill like this".

      Now obviously plenty of states aren't passing this- well over half the electoral votes want nothing to do with it. But no congressional amendment is required, just half of states doing this.

      Anyway Trump would have campaigned differently if it was a popular vote. No one even won the popular vote- nobody even had half. No one knows how it would have worked out if different electoral rules were in play. It is like saying "sure my team lost, but if field goals were worth seven and touchdowns three, they would have won". Well, maybe, but that game would have played out different too.

    89. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno. Just feels good to blame it on Dems I guess.. It's tradition, and we don't have to resort to logic and actual thinking things through!

      That the President himself replaced many people under himself, probably also Dems fault, or government, yeah, blame gov!

    90. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Me and my unelected pals are gonna engage in governance at the highest level because we have to subvert the will of the American people. We conspire in secret to effect our will over that of democracy because our judgment is correct, as we all determined anonymously. Also we are totally not the 'deep state', that is a conspiracy theory. We are just and unknown number of anonymous personsell controlling the executive branch because you guys all fucked you election up."

      It may by treason, but it is absolutly sedition. This article is the most scary thing I have ever fucking read. You should be fucking scared shitless at the sheer magnitude of this treachery.

    91. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is not business yet. Thank God.

    92. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want to close the early primaries, or the open primaries?

      Also, I think you are discounting the immigration issue. While Cruz is/was a much-needed "anti-McConnell" that might have actually focused on some key Republican goals, such as killing the ACA and the Iran "deal" (and some other bastard children of Obama's Executive fiat), he wasn't running tough on immigration. Or the TPP.

      And the TPP was a NIGHTMARE.

      Trump has actually made ICE into a force to be feared, and he got us out of the TPP (even if he probably didn't understand it), which is a Godsend.

      Trump is also bulletproof. Most Republicans fold up and cry when people call them babykillers or acuse them of starving the elderly (or making them eat canned dogfood, ugh). Trump soaks it all up and then throws it back over Twitter or at his rallies.

      Traditionally, Republicans (and Democrats, to a lesser extent) have used their Veep candidates as attack dogs to say the mean things and (hopefully) take the punishment afterwards. Good Cop/Bad Cop. Dick Cheney was the ultimate Evil Veep. Trump does it all by himself.

    93. Re:Yes, they should by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      If this person REALLY cared about the American People, they would resign and publicly speak out against Donald Trump and openly disclose "Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses."

      Well, no. If they resign and publicly speak out, nobody Is going to listen. A brave man or woman would accept being called "coward" and "gutless", stay where they are, and make a difference where they can.

    94. Re:Yes, they should by mark_reh · · Score: 0

      Some American people, and the Russians voted for him. You're forgetting he lost the popular vote by millions. Oh, wait, that's right, I forgot about all the illegal aliens who voted for Hillary... Nevermind...

    95. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reagan's VP was George H.W. Bush, not Dan Quayle.

      Quayle was George H.W. Bush' Veep.

      It is also curious that people still misunderstand Reagan. Yes, his mind did decline in the waning years of his Presidency, but he was a skilled debater and deep thinker. Men like William F. Buckley considered him an equal, even if he was not an entirely agreeable one.

      Bankrupting the Soviet Union was (mostly) his idea. He executed that brilliantly.

    96. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Federal employees take an oath to support and defend the constitution.

      Yeah, and we've all seen how well they abide by THAT oath.
      They are so quick to scream "it's the Constitution" when it suits them, but if it should happen to challenge their agenda their answer is "no Right is absolute" or "the Constitution is a 'living document' subject to different interpretations."

    97. Re: Yes, they should by Ogive17 · · Score: 2

      Just because Trump beat Clinton 2 years ago does not mean he has the majority support of the American people. Most people did not vote for him.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    98. Re:Yes, they should by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0, Troll

      The phrase "deep state" makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. Do you really believe that such a thing exists?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    99. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of Republicans who didn't want this President, and painting all of us with that brush is just as foolish as the prejudiced tweets from the Blowhard-In-Chief.

      That's a shame. As a left-winger, I'd be inclined to listen to you if painting us as communist "fake Americans" hadn't been winning you disproportionate power over the whole government since Reagan, and as you cite later, now putting one of your own men on the Supreme Court to ban abortions, birth control, porn, the EPA, and homosexuals. You don't get to win the game with the broad brush and start crying when the other team starts using it on you. Not without making concessions on your part to surrender the advantage you gained from the foul play.

    100. Re: Yes, they should by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Whistleblowers are the second type. the first type are no whistleblowers. Usually the unnamed official in a NYTimes article is the first type playing politics.

    101. Re:Yes, they should by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Individual bureaucrats have worked subtly against the goals of their leaders since bureaucracies existed. They've done so not only for moral reasons, but for self interest in protecting their jobs and enhancing their power. They've also done so to save lives: I'm afraid that I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law, but Oskar Schindler saved roughly 850 people from execution by the Nazi regime for which he was working by paying an enormous bribe to ship them elsewhere than the execution chambers. That was a violation of his bureaucratic authority, and even a criminal act, one for which Mr. Schindler is remembered as a hero.

      Disobeying a criminal order, quietly, can be far more effective than publicly rebelling against it. Rebelling against a set of criminal orders within the any government can lead to charges of treason, as Edward Snowden understood when he exposed criminal behavior by the NSA and when Mark Felt exposed criminal activity of the Nixon Administration as the informant "Deep Throat". Whether this new anonymous source is _justified_ is a distinct question than whether an anonymous bureaucrat, working against a regime, can be justified.

    102. Re:Yes, they should by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The "agenda" is short on political goals, merely opposition to Mr. Trump's momen-to-moment policy changes.

    103. Re:Yes, they should by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"The real problem is first-past-the-post plurality voting"

      Indeed it is. It is 100% the problem, and on every level of government elections. And we *CAN* fix it, although it won't be easy.

      http://fairvote.org/

    104. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would lead us down a dark road...

      â" Hey, we know the people of our state voted this way, but New York and California voted the other way so we are going to ignore the will of the people in our state...and they elected us to their legislature so we can do that. â"

      Boy, you wanna talk about revolt.

    105. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      United, but independent, States.

    106. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bring logic and history and reason to this thread...it in no way will change how people think...only make them double-down on their arguments.

    107. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do people really understand the electorial college? It was put in place to make sure that marginalized people's have a voice!!!!

    108. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    109. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One conspiracy theory suggests that it might be, although the same article does provide some pretty compelling arguments why it probably isn't as well. Specifically, while "Lodestar" is an unusual word used by the author and also on multiple occassions by Mike Pence, the author also claims to use idioms used by other staffers to obfuscate.

      Supposition: there is not one author, but several. The intermediary is an attempt to disguise this fact.

    110. Re:Yes, they should by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They are worried that Trump will keep them out of government for a long time. The conservatives in the UK have the same fear over brexit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    111. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOST people didnâ(TM)t vote for Hillary either. More did*, but due to the well known fact that she neglected to pay attention to a couple Midwest states while campaigning and the whole electoral college mechanism of actually getting elected, she LOST THE ELECTION.

      *in New York and California

    112. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent poster is just another tinfoil hat republican looking for conspiracies everywhere

    113. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, in other words, the ends justify the means. Pretty much sums up everything wrong with the left today. Reprehensible behavior is... reprehensible, no matter who does it or for what reason. Losing sight of that is why the type of behavior we see today is so prevalent.

    114. Re: Yes, they should by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true tinpot dictator. AND a fucking coward to boot. Everyone loves the strongman they agree with, even (perhaps especially when) there's blood in their hands from their scapegoat.

      My dear, sweet America, I worry for you. You were 200 years old when I was born, how many more will you hold together before the ignorant and spoiled rip you apart to feast on your marrow?

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    115. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn some civics idiot. Then read the Federalist papers why elections are decided the way they are. Assholes like you were around when the Constitution was written, that's why we do have electoral votes. Fucking idiots

    116. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why did Obama and the entire media deny this at the time only to do an about face after losing?

      Remember, they were spying on Carter Page and everyone within two hops of him with a counter-intelligence FISA warrant for the entire campaign, so if you claim they had no idea about Russia, you're clearly wrong.

    117. Re: Yes, they should by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I thought that why you people had separate state legislation in the first place?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    118. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "deep state" in that both insiders are globalists ruling against the sovereignty of America.

    119. Re:Yes, they should by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      An interesting point. If that is the case then it would seem to make the 25th far more likely as it implies the "fifth column" in the White House might actually be at least somewhat organized, with at least some members knowing the identity of others and trusting them well enough to co-author the article. Still, as with impeachment, the 25th relies on the Senate signing off on it, in which case this could be groundwork intended to take advantage of any potential swings to the Democrats in the November mid-terms - e.g. hoping that there then will be enough Democrats and hacked-off Republicans in the Senate to get it through. Between that and the growing discontent with Theresa May's Chequers Plan for Brexit likely to come to head around the same time due to the planned publication of whatever terms (or lack thereof) the UK and EU have agreed, it's starting to look like November might be a memorable month for political spectacle.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    120. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because everyone in both of these two shitty parties is primarily concerned with their own personal agenda and have no qualms about unethical behavior or hypocrisy

    121. Re:Yes, they should by aquacrayfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh huh. You believe staffers are going to convince the Senate *AND* the House of Representatives to sign onto the 25th Amendment to remove someone their base loves? How many times do they need to demonstrate that they care more about staying in power than serving the nation?

    122. Re:Yes, they should by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By propping Trump up and keeping him from giving in to his basest urges (e.g. ordering the assassination of Assad because he's upset at how Syria's turning out), they're stopping the immediate harm but allowing long-term harm to occur. They're essentially slapping a crude patch on a dam that's sprung a leak. Yes, it stops the immediate issue, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem and when you have to do this multiple times you're better off warning the town downstream that they're going to be flooded.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    123. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These idiots think they've uncovered some secret. Ooh the 'deep state' it sounds so nefarious! But all they did was come up with a new name for 'Bureaucracy'. Theyre so in-the-know!

    124. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The popular vote doesn't doesn't mean much in a legal sense but as far as this quaint notion "consent of the governed" goes it's important. And the current occupant of the office does not have it. And does not care. That's a reflection of his own moral cowardice.

    125. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We wouldn't want a Dakota revolt. It would be scary to see all 3 inhabitants being angry at losing their 4 senators and electoral votes.

    126. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That rural people have MORE voice.

    127. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's common Republican boilerplate when they're in power. Crying about tribalism is yet another way they try to paint any opposition as fake American traitors. Funny how they didn't give a shit about any of that in the Tea Party days. (Though to McCain's credit he DID push back against that woman in his audience in the '08 election season running some "Kenyan muslim" claptrap about Obama. Plus one for that, minus a hundred for legitimizing Palin.)

    128. Re:Yes, they should by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets. So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.

      No, this is not the Deep State. The Deep State is the part of government that lives on independently of elected officials. Various employees in the TLAs who have been there since Jesus, or who hire and groom new people who will also be there forever. I can believe that, as in any large organization, public or private, there is an in-built culture that may be contrary to the whims of any new leader. Like any such organization, the efficacy of that leader to control his organization in spite of that is also his measure. I have had employers who have ousted CEOs after just a year, because they were unable to control the internal culture of their organization, so they hired someone else who would...viciously. Trump can blame the "deep state" for his first year, after that it's his fault.

      Regardless, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about senior staffers that Trump either appointed himself, or someone he did directly appoint hired for the sole purpose of supporting the President's agenda. If Trump cannot see a problem that close to him, he's not being a very effective leader. It is possible (but I think unlikely) it was someone like Pence, who Trump was perhaps saddled with by his party and cannot be fired. Either way, this is a person Trump is responsible for, or who is responsible to the American people directly. It's not "deep state" at all.

      It might be treason, I'm not sure. On one hand the argument will be that these people are actually, genuinely acting in the best interests of the US in spite of an erratic and probably insane leader. On the other hand, the leader is the person the nation elected, and whether we like his agenda or not, we have to somehow cope with his actions and anyone deliberately undermining him is at best, a bad employee, at worst a criminal. I don't know what the law says on this, but I do know that Trump ought to be able to see, measure and act on this. He should know what policies he is trying to drive forward, and he should be able to see that they got done, or if not, where the problem was. That's just middle management 101. That he cannot implies he's not paying attention, and he himself is responsible for what this "resistance" is doing.

      If I say "give Putin a handy" and Putin isn't given a handy within a few days, I'm going to ask questions about why that was not done and who was responsible. If I don't like the reasons, I'm going to take disciplinary action. If there is a pattern, I'm going to rid myself of the problem. Why isn't Trump doing this? Does he have any idea what he's saying and keep any kind of records? If this is important to him, doesn't he come back an appropriate interval later and ask how such and such is going? This is his own organization.

      Or the NY Times is lying about the credentials of anon. Also a possibility, however remote. The real issue I have with this piece is that it's very destructive both to the intent of this resistance, as well as to the republican party. I'm not sure who wrote it, but I question their agenda.

    129. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I voted for Trump because I was tired of leftists calling me names for not agreeing with them. Their daily panic attacks and tears of sorrow are a delight to behold.

    130. Re:Yes, they should by sycodon · · Score: 2

      No.

      The election is decided by the States. Thus, the Electoral College.

      The Federal Government is an invention of the States.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    131. Re:Yes, they should by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      A "lodestar"? It should be pretty easy to identify this writer by their style. Bet it won't take a week.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    132. Re:Yes, they should by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can name seven:

      Outlawing abortion
      Gutting all social services
      Spending more on the military
      Lowering corporate taxes and reducing fiscal oversight
      Large scale reduction of the federal government and removal of a majority of federal policies, rules and regulations
      Reduced education spending
      Privatization of former government projects including infrastructure building, military operations, spaceflight. education, etc.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    133. Re:Yes, they should by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      or work for the interests of who you are working for.

      The American people?

      Oh you mean the people that voted him in office ? Or the people who think they know better how to run everyone's life ?

    134. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you resent it then move to the rural area.

    135. Re: Yes, they should by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      The agreed upon rules include things like campaign finance laws, registering contacts with foreign governments, etc. much of which was ignored. "The rules" went from bent to broken.

    136. Re:Yes, they should by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      We of the dark side are quietly relieved that Trump has now turned against Sessions. When the AG was first nominated, it was we who brought up the issue that Sessions supports civil forfeiture. When Trump was asked about this, it was found that he was apparently unaware of what the term meant.

    137. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are grasping at straws. This administration conductrd unprecedented house cleaning because of its paranoia and antipathy towards the previous administration.

      Moreover, this op-ed is just the latest in a steady stream of disparaging stories coming from every corner of the presidentâ(TM)s hand picked staff.

      You are arguing yourself into a corner. Eventually you will have to conclude that the president himself is part of the conspiracy.

    138. Re:Yes, they should by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Deep state" is just a newfangled term for bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists quietly agreeing to cooperate to preserve their own fiefdoms while screwing over the rest of us. This is not a newfangled problem.

    139. Re:Yes, they should by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      the people of America by a majority voted for a different candidate

      To be totally pedantic...

      There are some 320 million people in the united states (or were, in 2016). In 2016, some 136 million votes were cast for president. So the majority of people in the United States didn't vote at all!

      But I hear what you are saying: "I meant a majority of eligible voters".

      One could look up the stats in a bunch of places, but according to this particular source, about 59% of eligible voters participated in the 2016 presidential election. Of those that did vote, Trump got about 46% and Clinton about 48%. So, yes, I guess a majority of voters chose a different candidate than Trump.

      But in terms of eligible voters, Trump got about 27%, Clinton about 28%, .... and not even bothering to vote got 41%. So, literally, it looks like "nobody" wins!

    140. Re:Yes, they should by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Deep state operatives tell you they're working for the American people,

      Just dropping in for the daily reminder that "The Deep State" isn't actually a thing that exists other than as a weasel word for "people the president doesnt like".

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    141. Re:Yes, they should by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right?

      Anything does that. We're talking about deeply stupid people here. These are all people Trump has selected. Any swamp or deep state at this point isn't something he inherited but something he is responsible for creating.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    142. Re:Yes, they should by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Naw fuck you. Your party is still on his dick. So leave it, coward.

    143. Re:Yes, they should by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Walter Bagehot had a rather astute observation on the Electoral College, and while his bias was clearly towards the Westminster style of government, it's useful to read what he viewed as the Electoral College's failings when it was ultimately put into practice:

      "The main function of the House of Commons is one which we
      know quite well, though our common constitutional speech does not
      recognise it. The House of Commons is an electoral chamber; it is
      the assembly which chooses our president. Washington and his
      fellow-politicians contrived an electoral college, to be composed (as
      was hoped) of the wisest people in the nation, which, after due
      deliberation, was to choose for President the wisest man in the
      nation. But that college is a sham; it has no independence and no life.
      No one knows, or cares to know, who its members are. They never
      discuss, and never deliberate. They were chosen to vote that Mr
      Lincoln be President, or that Mr Breckenridge be President; they do
      so vote, and they go home. But our House of Commons is a real
      choosing body; it elects the people it likes. And it dismisses whom it
      likes too. No matter that a few months since it was chosen to support
      Lord Aberdeen or Lord Palmerston; upon a sudden occasion it ousts
      the statesman to whom it at first adhered, and selects an opposite
      statesman whom it at first rejected. Doubtless in such cases there is
      tacit reference to probable public opinion; but certainly also there is
      much free will in the judgment of the Commons. The House only
      goes where it thinks in the end the nation will follow; but it takes
      its chance of the nation following or not following; it assumes the
      initiative, and acts upon its discretion or its caprice."
      - The English Constitution

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    144. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Such a simple concept. Really not that hard to understand.

    145. Re:Yes, they should by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      You need to be in a damn asylum. Time to bring back forced institutionalism.

    146. Re:Yes, they should by DrXym · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seems to be a person who is a republican in the traditional sense - small government, free market etc. and is exasperated by the idiot at the helm. Writing an op-ed, even anonymously comes with a great deal of personal risk so I have to assume they're sincere in what they wrote. Although to be honest, I don't get the "adults in the room" argument unless the person is ex-military and feels honorbound to do what they can to blunt the stupidity coming from the top.

    147. Re: Yes, they should by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      Presidential staffers don't exercise the 25th ammendment, that is Congress. They have thus far failed. No surprise there. Possibly these fundamental failures writ large will bring a wave of positive change in the Congress by next year. I'm sure these staffers will be leveraging their rights in that regard.

      You fail to understand, at a fundamental level, this is not "a job", it's "public service". Their purpose is to serve the common good, or the country, if that other term scares you.

    148. Re:Yes, they should by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Supposition: there is not one author, but several. The intermediary is an attempt to disguise this fact.

      Came here to say that. You beat me to it.

      Indeed, maybe it's like Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. Maybe they all wrote it.

      [For obvious reasons, please don't take the analogy too seriously.]

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    149. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either get out and berate them publicly, or work for the interests of who you are working for.

      Cool, just as soon as you remind me who elected you king so I have to follow all your dictates. Take your time...

    150. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod parent UP. I don't know about the numbers, but this is a nice concise explanation of our voting system.

      Every election someone brings up the "popular vote" BS. It's a total waste of time that the ants run all over. Shame on the media for lighting and fanning the topic each election.

      It's not really a waste of time though, it is a fair point. Numbers of representitves not tallying exactly proportionally with votes cast is understandable when electing multiple people. For a single position however, votes should just all be counted and see who has the most. The only reason not to is for someone to have control over wayward voters' decision.

    151. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiight, because she only needed 4 more electoral college votes to win...oh, wait.

    152. Re: Yes, they should by reanjr · · Score: 1

      "Deep State" is just a way of saying "competent government apparatus". Bring on the deep state.

    153. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. I think the previous AC may have been implying there would be a revolt at the ballot box during the next state elections.

    154. Re:Yes, they should by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Since you're such an America expert then you must know this is a republic so the election is not decided by the mob rule of NYC and LA, but by all the people of America. Nice attempt to be misleading via fake news tho.

      Only 1 quarter of Americans voted for Trump. A slightly larger quarter voted for HRC, and the rest didn't bother or threw their votes away for 3rd party candidates. So something went terribly wrong with American politics and democracy.

      Regardless of how you feel about urban centers (who happen to host 80% of the population and are responsible for the bulk of the US economic and technological achievements), that the EC tilted that way is simply a brief delay of the inevitable (as urban flight continues to vacuum out fly over country.)

      This will sooner or later (actually sooner) will reflect in the balance of powers in the legislative, both in the Senate and in the House (specially in the House), which will alter the balance of power to present an actual representation of where (and how) the bulk of Americans live and think.

      Whether you (the generic you) accepts this is irrelevant.

    155. Re:Yes, they should by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      the election is decided...by all the people of America

      Well in this case, it clearly didn't work out that way.

      It actually did. Almost half of the voters opted out. And in voting, opting out means letting others vote on their behalf. So by act or omission, the American people voted for this shit show.

      Democracy, be it direct or representative, it is a function of its people. Shit in. Shit out. It ain't a Harry Potter magic wand that will prevent popular stupidity from generating its own Darwin awards.

    156. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obvious that even when presented with evidence by the NYT (an anonymous op ed stating it's from a "senior official" and wanting to work against the President pretty much defines deep state) that you won't. That's denial at the crazy level. You really, really need a good mirror.

    157. Re:Yes, they should by Eldaar · · Score: 1

      The real problem is first-past-the-post plurality voting. In any of the early primaries, Trump would have lost every single head-to-head matchup, so any decent electoral system (i.e. any kind of Condorcet preference balloting) would have avoided this disaster.

      Ding, ding, ding!

      First-past-the-post, aka plurality voting, is a very poor system for choosing a candidate that best fits everyone's tastes. All it says is, "Out of these x candidates, which ONE will you pick if you have to?" We have no idea how the voter feels about the other candidates - they might really like 3 and hate the rest, but they only get to pick one.

      Approval voting is a great system we should be using instead. Instead of only getting to vote for one candidate, you can vote for as many as you like. If you want to vote for a Republican and a Libertarian, you can do that. If you want to vote for a Democrat and a Green, you could do that, too. If it's a primary and you like most of them just fine but really hate one (maybe Trump?), then you can vote for every candidate except for the one you hate, which is effectively like voting against the candidate you hate. In other words, approval voting gives voters a much greater ability to express their opinion. (approvalvoting.com)

      Ranked choice voting would also be a good alternative, though it's more complicated for voters and people counting the votes, too. I think approval voting is just easier and better, but I would definitely prefer ranked choice elections to plurality elections.

    158. Re:Yes, they should by jwdb · · Score: 2

      If my "employer" appears to be unbalanced, and has the authority to start World War III, I just might be inclined to do a little undermining for the sake of the planet and the human race.

      If my employer were unhinged enough to need to be undermined in this way and I was aware of it, then I'd be a pretty compelling witness for an impeachment or a 25th amendment action, and that'd clearly be the more ethical choice. If he's really that dangerous, leaving him in power is morally bankrupt, and not even that effective considering you never know when he'll fire you and replace you with a more pliant individual.

      Thinking you can "fix" this through subterfuge is counterproductive: it's anti-democratic, increases Trump's paranoia even further, decreases popular trust in the bureaucracy, etc...

    159. Re:Yes, they should by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 0

      wow, that is an interesting claim? Any primary documentation? Any actual evidence? I suspect if it could be produced, without also compromising himself, Trump would have already jailed Obama, Nixon didn't go to jail because he was pardoned by his vice president, but what you are saying is worse then anything Nixon did.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    160. Re:Yes, they should by fluffernutter · · Score: 3

      This. Why should he have to quit his job because his manager is completely incompetent? That's total bullshit.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    161. Re:Yes, they should by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This guy is somewhere in between. Would probably be fired but has a lot of establishment backing so would be unlikely to suffer much.

      There are highly principled people in decision-making positions in government, who put the nation first. Unfortunately, they are severely in the minority. Most of our so-called representatives, especially in this congress, are partisan bastards who would do anything their leaders commanded them to do. These people expect politicians to do as their party instructs them, and they would very much hold this against the anonymous author.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    162. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there aren't. Anonymous source simply means "I'm not going to tell you". No one but no one should be trusted when telling you something without supporting evidence. Hell, the reporter could simply be writing the text and in some cases has been found to have done so.

    163. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Yeah, that's just what I thought would happen.

    164. Re: Yes, they should by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      The electoral college was supposed to prevent exactly this... a mob that is too stupid to vote taking control of the presidential office. They could have stopped it but they failed.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    165. Re:Yes, they should by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      And Woodward has been proven to have no problem with fabricating quotes. Not a good standard for you to have raised.

    166. Re:Yes, they should by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      The real problem is first-past-the-post plurality voting.

      True. You should finally abolish that silliness and join the rest of us with sane electoral systems.

      In any of the early primaries, Trump would have lost every single head-to-head matchup

      Huh? What? It's the party that decides how they elect their candidates. It does not require a constitutional amendment to change, does it?

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    167. Re: Yes, they should by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 2

      no , they have balanced voice, because they offer a different perspective. Don't you know you are supposed to value 'diversity'. That balance was struck and agreed on as a condition of the the more rural states forming a union with the more populous states. If you oppose the balance of that social contract, then logically you must also allow for the renegotiation of the union, or it being dissolved, because you are advocating against the terms of the existing social contract.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    168. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you can't fix the first-past-the-post system without changing the constitution, and that's highly unlikely.

      The US Constitution is not remotely specific enough to require first-past-the-post voting. Furthermore, the GP was talking about the primaries, which are a party process not a government process (although the state governments provide most of the resources to run them).

    169. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is not governed by majoritarianism, it's government as a federation of states.

      And Clinton lost despite massive media bias and media manipulation in her favor.

    170. Re:Yes, they should by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You still don't get why Trump won.

      Sure we do. It's called the Electoral College, and it was designed to keep the people from electing the president.

      They are sick and tired of sneering upper middle class liberals scaremongering about anybody who isn't part of the political establishment and being called racists for wanting to maintain a national sovereignty and set of values.

      They're being called racists for being racists. Wanting to maintain racist values is racism.

      They are sick and tired of their acquaintances screaming on Facebook UNFRIEND ME IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP YOU RACIST BIGOT.

      You can't support Trump without supporting racism and bigotry, and supporting racism and bigotry makes one a racist bigot.

      They also aren't as affected by the complete gutting of industrial jobs, the massive increases in real estate prices completely pricing average Americans out of their home ownership or the huge pressure on the labor market and welfare system by lax immigration policies.

      No, they're more affected. The industrial jobs leave the "wealthy" states (you know, the ones that pay the taxes that permit the red states to exist and function) first. Home prices are vastly higher in these states, because we have policies that make people actually want to live here. And there is no huge pressure on the labor market from lax immigration policies; immigrants overwhelmingly do jobs that other people don't want to do. However, work visa programs overwhelmingly harm the people in the states where liberals live, because those are the places where technical jobs exist. The H1Bs aren't going to the red states, except Texas which is gradually turning blue as old racists die.

      And until all of the professional class elitists get their head out of their little bubble and get in touch with what matters to the common man, we will continue coming out to the voting booth and burning your entire globalist establishment to the fucking ground.

      Well, thanks for admitting that your kind is capable of nothing better than arson.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    171. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Why would this push anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats?

      Why would anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics have allegiance to either party?

      Are you imagining a White House full of secret Democrats?

      I'm imagining a federal government full of people who lust for power and money, and who are going to fight tooth and nail anything that threatens their privileges.

      These are Republicans trying to contain a blowhard nut. There is nothing about that that is unethical on Democrats' part.

      It's a shame that there weren't any Democrats trying to contain a blowhard nut in the last administration; but that's because the last blowhard nut paid off his corrupt entourage handsomely.

    172. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find the term deep state comical. Less than a majority voted for the current president, less than half approve and the administration ramrods everything like they have a mandate. If the majority is Deep State operatives in the public square and behind closed doors or undercover... whatever.

      Unacceptable behavior, ethics, morals and outright lies from those in power, does not equate to a great America. It reveals a decline.

      No moral compass, lie if the ends justify the means and keep telling me it's raining while you're pissing down my back. How do people of character, nothing to do with party affiliation endorse this circus?

      So proud to say we are watching this occur and the party in control does nothing for fear of jeopardizing a political career.

      Deep State? More like a silent coup.

    173. Re: Yes, they should by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      Presidential staffers don't exercise the 25th ammendment, that is Congress.

      Minor clarification: it's the Vice President and Cabinet ("principal officers of the executive departments") who must invoke the 25th Amendment, and then Congress approves it by a 2/3 vote if the President disagrees. If Congress wants to remove the president, it's just a normal impeachment process.

    174. Re:Yes, they should by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If there is a pattern, I'm going to rid myself of the problem. Why isn't Trump doing this? Does he have any idea what he's saying and keep any kind of records?

      Well, if this stuff can be believed, you can outfox him simply by taking a paper off his desk before he signs it. All signs point to Trump being mentally incompetent to perform the duties of the president.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    175. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the people of America by a majority voted for a different candidate

      The people of America by a majority voted for NO ONE, ~26% is NOT a majority of those eligible and registered to vote.

    176. Re:Yes, they should by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      And Woodward has been proven to have no problem with fabricating quotes. Not a good standard for you to have raised.

      At least this time he wasn't interviewing a guy in a coma.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    177. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are in fact, according to Trump himself, "the best people."

    178. Re:Yes, they should by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 0

      they think we're scum.

      You're describing a sentiment that has existed for centuries between the governing classes and the the rest of the population, whether you go back to ancient Rome, China, or the colonial America. This is nothing new, and by acting like you are some how enlightening people to some deeply uncovered fact you dug up shows just how much of a poseur you are. But I digress.

      What is interesting is your use of the word "we're". Who is the we you are referring to? You certainly aren't referring to the "American people". The group you are identifying with is not the majority of the American people. Not even close.

      When you pontificate about how you are such a "salt of the earth" protector of the common man, you actually come off as just another Alex Jones authoritarian.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    179. Re:Yes, they should by randallman · · Score: 1

      These are people Trump brought in (the best people). How can they also be the "Deep State".

    180. Re:Yes, they should by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      Either way, if it does come to the 25th, Trump's supporters are going to go *nuts* about a coup if it succeeds and Pence takes the oath. Never mind buying popcorn, I'm going to be buying stock in popcorn *suppliers*.

      Nah, they'd be fine with it. While Pence won't get the extreme nutjobs excited about open racism finally be acceptable again, he would be far more effective at actually accomplishing their goals.

    181. Re: Yes, they should by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      25th Amendment.

      Either you believe your President is capable of doing his job, in which case you allow him to do it, or you don't, in which case you execute the constitutional process for relieving him from power, a process that was put in place so it's transparent and so that the people who use it can be held accountable.

      What you don't fucking do is pretend everything's OK and then steal papers from his desk because you're worried he might sign them.

      I absolutely believe that Trump is a clear and present danger to this country, and I am absolutely convinced he needs to be removed from office. But pretending he's in charge and frustrating his efforts is not the way to do that, that's what cowards do who do not want to be held accountable.

      The 25th and impeachment are both cases where Democratic agencies can hold those responsible for the actions to account. If you believe the government should be accountable to the governed, you should be utterly opposed to what the NYT op-ed writer claimed to be doing. He or she should be identified and held accountable.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    182. Re: Yes, they should by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      It's all well and good to understand how the American electoral system works, but part of that is also understanding that it does not always represent the will of the American people. If it did, then electoral results would always match result of the nationwide popular vote, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

      The best you can say for it is that it precisely represents "the will of the 50 states", which is not quite the same thing, and honestly not a very useful property to have, in that a state is not a conscious being and therefore doesn't have any "will" to speak of, only a set of algorithmic rules it blindly follows.

      So yes, Trump was duly elected under the rules of American elections. That doesn't mean he gets to claim any kind of mandate from the American people, though, because the simple and unarguable fact is that most Americans didn't want him to be elected.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    183. Re:Yes, they should by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      And this Congress is going to throw out the hobby horse they've been riding to more conservative judges, more pollution all around, more money for their donors? I don't think so.

      You don't think Pence will do those things exactly the same way?

    184. Re:Yes, they should by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 0

      Again, you're weak attempts to vindicate and apologize for Trump and all that he stands for based on "common man" concerns shows you for what you really are, an authoritarian.

      I could easily pick apart your arguments, but they fall flat on their face right out of the gate, whether it is globalism, "the left" or any of the other nonsense concerns you bring up.

      And from someone who doesn't use social media, I find it quite entertaining that you are up in arms about getting unfriended by "friends" who don't like your support for the absolute worst president in American history.

      Oh, and by the way, how is that Brexit thing coming along? How many medical professionals are going to leave the UK or already have left? What about the price and availability of fresh produce?

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    185. Re:Yes, they should by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      That's the sort of example I was referring to. I don't necessarily believe statements like that, but they certainly appear more and more true when he can't maintain discipline amongst his own hand-picked staff.

    186. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The American people who elected this man as their president.

      Oh, yes the old saw about the popular vote.....the method of election is just as clear as with other rules of the game. You win by runs past home base not the number of pipe left on base. You win by passing across the goal line, not the number of yards gained. There is a reason for these rules.... the people elect, not the folks in the cities of California and new york.

    187. Re:Yes, they should by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I had fully expected the Republican party to start fracturing after Trump won the primaries and then the presidency. I was surprised when the majority of his Republican critics turned around and started toadying up to him. I wonder if after the midterms and their jobs are safe for awhile longer if they dare to criticize again, but as unpredictable as things have been I'm probably wrong.

      And you can't fix the first-past-the-post system without changing the constitution, and that's highly unlikely. What you want is a change in the electorate to start favoring more moderates and centrists even in the primaries. California has a system now where the top two winners of primaries advance to the general election, even if from the same party. Hasn't been around long though so it's unclear if this will make a clear difference in the long run. Given that both major parties bitterly opposed it, it's probably a good idea.

      And I have come to the conclusion after several decades, that loyalty to a political party is the biggest vice in America.

      It is up to the states how they assigned their electors. It used to be more states than just Maine had the decency and balls to split their electors fairly.

    188. Re:Yes, they should by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Note that less than half of the GOP voted for Trump in the primaries - even though by the time of the later primaries most of the other candidates had bowed out."

      That's funny. Well, all except the pathetic part. Primaries work that way, casting aside the not-quite-good-enough and leaving a winner, unless of course it's Democrat Party primaries, which are rigged all the way through the convention.

      "There are plenty of Republicans who didn't want this President"

      Alas, there are plenty of Republicans that DID want this President. And enough non-Republicans to make it so.

      "and painting all of us with that brush is just as foolish as the prejudiced tweets from the Blowhard-In-Chief."

      Your own prejudices are showing through. Fortunately you are entitled to them, and more fortunately you've chosen to oppose the forces that would defend you. The other side, not so much.

      "We have got to fix the broken election systems in the US."

      What? Nothing wrong with the election systems in the US. You're just complaining about the result, and that's not caused by the process. No, it is not.

      "The real problem is first-past-the-post plurality voting. In any of the early primaries,"

      You focus on the primaries. Consider these points:

      - Primaries serve the major political parties, first, and local/state election officials, second. A convenient way to narrow the field. But these are not Constitutional provisions. How about you go to work on your local and state agencies and make the changes you think are essential where they need to be made. National primaries are an oxymoron, and pointless.

      - 'Open' primaries are destructive. If the process is intended to narrow the field based on political party, then an open primary fails. It permits those not actually affiliated with the party to participate in the selection process. Though perhaps 23 states have some form of open presidential primary elections, it still is wrong. But this is a state issue.

      "In any of the early primaries, Trump would have lost every single head-to-head matchup"

      Well, then, tell those pesky Republicans to limit the primary contest to two candidates. Or shut the heck up, because that's stupid, and your point is lost in the noise of dumb. the real world includes multiple contestants. The Democrats had only two candidate,s and they cheated one. Better?

      "so any decent electoral system (i.e. any kind of Condorcet preference balloting)"

      Actually, I reject this. While there are clever and interesting election systems, when the system is well understood by the voters, I believe it yields valid results. A winner-take-all system isn't deceptive, voters know or should know they are making a choice, period. Cleverness isn't needed here, clarity is. Clarity.

      "would have avoided this disaster."

      What disaster? Oh, the refusal and outright revolt from the losing side? Really, an different process would have avoided the refusal of the Democrats to accept the results? They liked them when they won. Losing has exposed something else, something much more sinister and dangerous, something yet not widely understood.

      "As long as we keep first-past-the-post primaries, both parties will frequently nominate miserable candidates."

      Oh dear. The raw material is flawed. Changing the voting process won't change THAT.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    189. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP isn't talking about non-voters. He's talking about the fact that a majority of the people who did vote voted for a person who did not win the election.

    190. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their base are retards who don't deserve the right to vote

    191. Re:Yes, they should by Berkyjay · · Score: 1

      it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.

      lol! Care to elaborate on this set of mental gymnastics?

    192. Re:Yes, they should by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here you go

      Pay special attention to the parts that create the Electoral College and the US Senate, both of which were explicitly designed to limit the impact of Democracy.

      As an added bonus google "Gerrymandering" and "Voter Suppression"

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    193. Re:Yes, they should by randallman · · Score: 1

      You think Trump understands or cares about the plight of the working man? He's never worked an honest day in his life. He looks down on the very people who support him, the "Dumb Southerners" (I'm from MS). He used them just like he has always used people. Everyone with an ounce of intelligence and honesty knew he was unfit for the office and the only reason to vote him in was to throw a giant middle finger to the federal government.

      "huge pressure on the labor market and welfare system by lax immigration policies" - This is looking more and more staged. This is FUD talk, with no base in reality.

      "cultural relativism and globalism" - Yep, more talking points. Your entire comment sounds like Heritage style propaganda.

      "they don't know what's best for them by young people who have never experienced Britain before the EU" - And you do? So you're not even American and you're commenting on our elections? If that's the case, screw off.

      virtue signaling - One of my pet peeves. I think it's just a code word to write off any effort to improve our plight with regards to global warming. Here's the fact of the matter. Global warming is the biggest threat humanity faces. Again, Global warming is the biggest threat humanity faces. You will accept this fact either now or later when you or your children are dealing with the consequences. Though not all methods will prove feasible, any attempt to prevent or reduce the impact of global warming should be supported, not chastised. In working against these efforts, you are a traitor to the human race.

    194. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American people voted for Clinton, not Trump.

    195. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling administration appointees Deep State is a pathetic, cop-out attempt to rationalize the administration incompetence and corruption.

    196. Re:Yes, they should by randallman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep. This is a copy-paste job: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol...

    197. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and lets be honest, even those of us who hate trump didn't really want her to win either.

    198. Re:Yes, they should by randallman · · Score: 1
    199. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad your party fights any attempt to implement the changes you agree are necessary.

    200. Re:Yes, they should by Rhipf · · Score: 2

      Other than Trump saying quotes are fabricated do you have any other references that Woodward "has been proven to have no problem with fabricating quotes"?

    201. Re:Yes, they should by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that there weren't any Democrats trying to contain a blowhard nut in the last administration; but that's because the last blowhard nut paid off his corrupt entourage handsomely.

      Could you remind me of the Obama early morning bat shit crazy tweets again. I seem to have forgotten about them.

    202. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that Trump's own lawyer has implicated him as a co-conspirator in violation of campaign finance laws, I think it's safe to say Hillary did not lose "fair and square".

      And once you consider how Trump and his associates coordinated with Russia, it's closer to "Trump cheated every way he could". Even if you don't consider Trump to have taken part in that cheating, the mere fact that Russia was behind so much intervention in the election means that Clinton's loss wasn't "fair and square".

      dom

    203. Re:Yes, they should by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      That's not really Whataboutism when you've started the discussion attempting to suggest that the difference between the elected people and the establishment is that the latter regards you with contempt.

      Whataboutism is trying to change the subject by using a poor example to suggest that your side is guilty of the same great evil that the side you're attacking is. As in "Trump used information stolen from Facebook to win the election", "Well Obama also used Facebook to help him win an election, so what's wrong with that. I win, you lose, #triggered #tgot #maga" Nobody mentioned Obama, the example is poor, it wouldn't show stealing Facebook data was right, it's just trolling.

      The person who compared the establishment to Trump is you, albeit by implication. And the thing you accused the establishment of is more accurately directed at Trump.

      In reality, there's nothing to suggest that the establishment is more contemptuous of "ordinary people" than the administration that the Republican side of the establishment is underhandedly trying to undermine. Far from it, the overwhelming evidence is that, from the lies, the use of racism, Trump University, and so on, Trump has absolute contempt not merely for Americans as a whole, but his own base in particular.

      I do not believe that to be true of your average random establishment jackass, most of whom really don't give a fuck about your or me either way as long as they get their's.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    204. Re:Yes, they should by Falconnan · · Score: 2

      Imagine yourself in this position. Maybe you bought into the message and were hopeful you'd be working for a true populist. You then watch as the leader you sought to follow is trying to steer the ship of state into an iceberg on the assumption the ship is unsinkable. But history already has judged that notion. If you resign, maybe the ship hits the iceberg. Stay and maybe it still does, but you tried. But if you help the Captain hit the iceberg, what greater purpose did your sacrifice serve? Your nation suffers, you committed probable crimes, and it just gets worse from there.

      These people may serve at the pleasure of the President, but they don't work for the President. The AG doesn't, the FBI doesn't. Their work for the Office doesn't immediately translate to working for the office holder. It's a fine distinction which used to be less important under better office holders.

      I wasn't a fan of George W. Bush, but I never considered him a bull in a china shop. Occasionally inept, but not generally incompetent or insanely corrupt. Obama could have been more forceful. Both men seemed to follow their conscience. Amorality is the perfect description for what we have now, and a servant of The People isn't necessarily going to resign in protest if they think they can prevent disaster... Assuming that's the motive.

      But let's be real here: Nixon was brought down by those who put Country ahead of Party. We need that now, and frankly always. It's rare in history, however, to see the two priorities diverge so strongly.

    205. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just another name for corporate shills in public office.

    206. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point 4. When, during the campaign, Trump criticized the Elector system, he was shouted down by DNC representatives, ridiculed and insulted for that criticism.

      It's helluva hypocritical for the Left to call into question results of elections that were performed according to the system they demanded stays in place, while they would have won, had they just followed up Trump's opinion.

      Like that GF who says "No, I'm not hungry" then steals all your fries.

    207. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, before last election Trump brought up the "popular vote" and suggested the change, but DNC shouted him down. So seems like sour grapes, for them to complain about this now.

    208. Re:Yes, they should by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      There are many good things about open primaries. In our state, one party dominates. If you want any say in who will be in office, you have to vote in that primary (unless there is some race in your party that is close and really matters to you). Whoever is elected is supposed to represent all the people in the state, so for those states who are lopsided, why is an open primary an issue? If you have crazy people who want to run on your ticket, prevent that from happening so that if there are cross over voters they will be choosing from candidates that you might actually want in office. If the ballot entry is controlled better then an open primary isn't an issue. Am I really supposed to know whether or not a person is changing parties for good or just for the primary, and in either case it shouldn't matter.

      The big issue is that the primaries are spread out over a very long time. All primaries should happen on the same day - just like the general election - for all parties. You should not be able to fund your campaign outside of the rules and regulations that would apply for any other donor. One of the issues in our state this election cycle was that someone tried to do what Trump did and fund his own campaign. He lost, and claimed the same open primary process was the reason. The fact there were interminable phone calls on his behalf wasn't seen as an issue, but probably turned off more voters than it helped. If Trump hadn't been able to fund most of his campaign himself due to restrictions on donations to a campaign, we also wouldn't be having this discussion.

    209. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think upper-middle class people are the only liberals? Everyone, really, but especially the poor are the ones getting shafted by Republican policies, and ones calling for reform! Better wages, better education for a changing demand in work, better healthcare, and so on.

      There are multiple discussions that while tied together, are distinct. Culture, economics and globalism, and domestic policy.

      I agree that elements of the social Left are extreme, and vocally so, in that any show of social "small-c" conservatism is called racism and xenophobia. It's annoying. Perhaps having a set of shared cultural values and norms is healthy in a society, and a place without a unifying identity will have increased social friction. I shouldn't be called a bigot for thinking that.

      Unrestrained globalism is a HUGE topic. The materialism in the West is fueled by incredibly cheap labor in Asia. Workers there don't have the human rights or workers' rights we expect here, so we outsource misery to save money on TVs and blue jeans. We should look to fix that. The pro-Globalist agenda is pushed by the mainstream in both political parties, though. Only the Democrats have a legitimate faction within the party that would consider reform in that area. Trump at least stayed out of TPP in its terrible form, but didn't work to make anything better on American workers.

      I could go on, but it's not the weekend. Let me close by saying the Republicans don't represent the common man. Trump has no loyalty to the principles of the United States or Western liberal democracy, and he shows it on a daily basis. I don't like many elements of the cultural attitudes of the far left, but right now, in America, the Democrats have a monopoly on sanity and decent domestic policy, and that's who needs to be in power for at least the next two years.

    210. Re:Yes, they should by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Informative

      You Trumptards keep repeating that lie. That kind of thing only works with people like you. The rest of us know that, while Hillary wasn't a great option, she was a far better option than Trump (as would be pretty much anyone else as is now plainly evident), which is why the majority of us voted for her. Trump was NOT elected into office by the people. Stop broadcasting your ignorance.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    211. Re:Yes, they should by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Trump lost, which means you wasted a lot of words explaining why something happened that literally never happened.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    212. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electoral college was supposed to prevent exactly this... a mob that is too stupid to vote taking control of the presidential office. They could have stopped it but they failed.

      Many will take offense at your accusation! The members of the Republican Party have every right to vote against their personal economic interests!

    213. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not a new problem, but it is a new phrase. And it is one that makes the speaker lose credibility when saying it.

    214. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And until all of the professional class elitists get their head out of their little bubble and get in touch with what matters to the common man, we will continue coming out to the voting booth and burning your entire globalist establishment to the fucking ground.

      Yeah take that establishment! Wait, why am I losing my job now? GOD DAMNED IMMIGRANTS ARE THE CAUSE. Lashing out at the wrong things won't fix your problems. You only cede time and personal wealth lashing out at the wrong targets. Giving in to base instincts only makes you vulnerable to manipulation by bullshitters who will tell you what you want to hear.

    215. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term deep state was first used to describe the pseudo government within a government that has existed in Pakistan for several decades , where parts of the ISI, military and bureaucracy operate independently of and against the actions of the elected government.

      Thatâ(TM)s likely different from the op ed author:

      1. They are apparently a Trump appointee, not a faceless , long term member of the bureaucracy.

      2. They are strongly aligned to the Republican Party agenda, you know the party that has the majority of seats in both the upper and lower houses of Congress. That is by definition working in a way that is aligned to the policies of elected officials.

      So whilst they have some similarities to a deep state, they donâ(TM)t quite fit the original definition which is not aligned to any of the major parties nor do they fit Trumps previous use of the term (heâ(TM)s up until now associated the deep state as being democrats , and the author apparently is not)

      If we want to define âoedeep stateâ as anyone in the government who does not do what the president wants, thatâ(TM)s probably too broad, as both the judiciary and legislative branches were specifically empowered to do EXACTLY that as a balance against abuse of executive power.

      Occamâ(TM)s razor:

      - Trump is an arsehole
      - the Republican Party did a deal with the devil to win the election
      - Trump is getting fucked by someone other than a porn star for a change

      None of that needs a deep state conspiracy, just lack of principles

    216. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true. Trump was wrong, like always.

    217. Re:Yes, they should by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Yup, I agree, but (as much as I dislike Trump) it's still not their job to play President; they weren't the one elected.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    218. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true at all, less than 1/3 of the voting population of the US voted for Trump, a little over 1/3 decided they couldn't be bothered to vote (shame on them) and about a 1/3 voted for Hilary. So Trump wasn't voted in by the American people, Trump was voted in by the electoral college.

    219. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      "In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump's campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn't share its data.

      The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump's digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica's, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump's campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC. "

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-of-cambridge-analytica-data-before-election/

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    220. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The op ed was written by a Republican, not a member of the left

    221. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . we will continue coming out to the voting booth and burning your entire globalist establishment to the fucking ground.

      You do realize that is the equivalent of swiping the Monopoly board off the table and wrecking the game for everybody because you're losing, don't you? Or grabbing your kickball and going home, because nobody wants to play your way?

      Perhaps that is why you voted in a guy who has the understanding of a 5th, or 6th grader.

      I mean, c'mon - you do have to admin that Mattis' comment was fucking funny.

    222. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite.
      The definition you provided is for the word "government".
      "Deep State" specifically refers to the subset government that gets in the way of the distinct subset of government the speaker is personally vested in advancing.

      So basilcy "checks and balances, but I'm buthurt about it".

    223. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is people think they vote for the president, they don’t.

      There are 3 main branches of government at the federal level. The legislative branch that makes up congress. People vote for their representives, this is the only branch people vote on.

      The judicial branch. This is assigned by the executive branch and approved by the legislative branch.

      Executive branch (president) this is voted on by the states, most states have systems where they go vote all of their votes based on majority vote in their state, a couple do split votes.

      So in summary in the US people vote for the legislative branch, states for the executive and the judicial is assigned by the executive with legislative approval.

    224. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      So what is the deep state? An organized group of officials acting as a government who are not elected by the people, operating without any Congressional approval or oversight. No deep state? "Each member of the administration must ask themselves how they can best serve the national interestâ"by working to limit the damage imposed by the president from the inside or by resigning and speaking out."

      http://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/07/16/around-the-halls-brookings-experts-react-to-the-trump-putin-meeting-and-nato-summit/

      A foreign policy establishment that serves its own goals instead of obeying the elected government. That's the definition of "deep state".

      http://www.washingtonexaminer.... "The election of Donald Trump was an assault on the federal bureaucracy"

      Bill Kristol, the prominent Republican analyst who founded The Weekly Standard, wrote on Twitter, "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."

      The second time in history a deep state or shadow government was recognized was by Senator Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) who blew the whistle on the shadow government deep state during the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlwGRIrfKcM

      At the time, Inouye expressed that the "shadow government had its own funding mechanism, shadowy Navy, and Air Force freedom to pursue its own goals free from all checks and balances and free from the law itself."

      Following Senator Daniel Inouye's testimony, years later a journalist named Danny Casolaro also warned about the potential of a deep state shadowy government which he deemed "The Octopus." The short end of the stick was Casolaro who was later found dead in the bathtub with his wrists on both hands slit multiple times and pages of his notes missing.

      Hey, remember the Bankers' Plot? To overthrow FDR?

      When Obama was in office, his speech writer called it "the Blob". It doesn't really matter what you call it, it's an unelected government and it does not give a shit about you or what you think.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    225. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because the conspiracy minded idiots on the right would just assume that the âoedictatorâ Obama was trying to steal the election. Same bullshit they have been fed since he took office.

      Obama wrongly assumed that there were enough sane citizens to not fall into the trap. It was a calculated risk and he was wrong. America has far too much imbeciles. Enough to vote a paid off clown into office.

    226. Re:Yes, they should by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You are of course correct when you say that Trump constantly seeks to undermine us and should resign. I have to admit I never thought you would get that clue,but congratulations in joining the vast majority of US citizens calling for this idiot Trump to resign!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    227. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Deep state operatives tell you they're working for the American people, but in fact, they think we're scum.

      Whoever sold you that line needs to pat themselves on the back.

      Seriously, the idea that there are people working behind the scenes to keep the country running on a relatively straight course, and that these people actually hate the public, is absurd. It's flat-out absurd.

      Like Biden was saying at McCain's service in Phoenix, if you want to argue against someone's position, fine. But don't question their motivation, don't act like they don't love the country or they aren't a good American or they aren't a patriot or whatever else. They might have a different position, and if you want to argue the position that's fine, but that doesn't mean they love the country any less than you do.

      Sitting there acting like you're some victim of this vast conspiracy full of people secretly running the country who hate America and hate Americans just makes you sound like a child.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    228. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      If this person REALLY cared about the American People, they would resign and publicly speak out against Donald Trump and openly disclose "Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses."

      Which would accomplish exactly nothing other than a stream of insults on Trump's twitter feed. This person chose to avoid that shit show and instead actively work for what they believe is best for the country.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    229. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... with what matters to the common man, we will continue coming out to the voting booth and burning your entire globalist establishment to the fucking ground.

      All that should matter to the common voter is personal economic interests. Since 99% of the population are not a member of the 1% of wealthiest voters, they should all be voting Democrat, since it is the Party that more closely represents their economic interests. All other concerns are irrellevant: there is no fucking global conspiracy of neocons! Row v. Wade will never be overturned, and the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed, and all deregulation only serves Big Business at the expense of the wealth and health of the common voter. Hatred of their own economic class is not a valid reason to vote against themselves, and that is what got President Trump elected. If citizens would only vote in their personal economic interests, there would be no Republican Party to speak of, as it could only consist of the 3.5M richest Americans, compared to 350M Americans in the lower 99% sharing 60% of what is left of the wealth, while the top richest 1% share the remaining 40% of the wealth.

      I, for one, do not believe that President Trump is a horrible person. He is flawed, and I see that many can relate to him, but he does not act in the interests of those that voted him into power, but in his own fickle interests, which are going to serve to remove him from office. But he is and will remain the worst President in the history of our country for his ineffectiveness, loss of confidence, personality flaws, high crimes and misdemeanors. For whatever the reason, he is unable to set aside his ego and rise up to become the Office, the way nearly all of his predecessors were able, even President George W. Bush relinquished his own ego to become more than he was. President Trump will not ever do this. It probably cannot be calculated the damage he is doing to our country, which will be played out for decades to come.

    230. Re:Yes, they should by butzwonker · · Score: 2

      Common folks, I think this has been settled by now. Trump wasn't voted into power because people disliked Obama, he wasn't voted into power because he was liked as a person, he wasn't voted into power for his rallies and speechs - only a small number of supporters find them appealing - and he wasn't voted into power for his policies like building a super-expensive wall to Mexico - they were notoriously unclear and some of them were not very Republican anyway (e.g. trade tariffs, get better public healthcare instead of the allegedly failed Obamacare, etc).

      Trump became president because (1) the other Republican candidates were amazingly weak and (2) because Hillary Clinton was one of the least popular candidates ever.That is the reason why he became president.

      (Well, according to NSA, FBI, etc., there was a bit of help by Russian trolls, too. But apparently even they didn't expect him to actually win, so it's unlikely that this interference was in any way decisive.)

    231. Re: Yes, they should by Stonesand · · Score: 1

      It's all well and good to understand how the American electoral system works, but part of that is also understanding that it does not always represent the will of the American people. If it did, then electoral results would always match result of the nationwide popular vote, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

      The best you can say for it is that it precisely represents "the will of the 50 states", which is not quite the same thing, and honestly not a very useful property to have, in that a state is not a conscious being and therefore doesn't have any "will" to speak of, only a set of algorithmic rules it blindly follows.

      So yes, Trump was duly elected under the rules of American elections. That doesn't mean he gets to claim any kind of mandate from the American people, though, because the simple and unarguable fact is that most Americans didn't want him to be elected.

      What? You're proposing the tyranny of the majority, my friend. The system was set up precisely to avoid what you're saying. :)

    232. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched my parents do this. They talked about Trump as a clown for months, then as he got closer and closer to the nomination, they started sending me articles about how "actually" he wasn't a buffoon. They support their party no matter what. Christians voting for a man who openly admits to having affairs with porn stars. These same people defend Trump when they lambasted Clinton for his affairs. I could not handle the amount of cognitive dissonance they must walk around with every day.

    233. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's still not their job to play President

      And it's not your job to assume they're guilty until proven innocent.

      As pointed out by other comments, staffers serve the country/constitution, not the POTUS. There is no rule saying that staffs must act as obedient cogs to the machine. Staffs are free individuals before they're staffers and can act as such... up to a point.

      The memo doesn't contain much details what exactly has this "resistance" done. Without further investigation, we don't know whether they are merely free individuals exercising their judgment, or they have cross the line into "playing President"

      That the WH is coming out with this condemnation hints that they don't really have enough material to win the court of law, so they are engaging the court of public opinion (though same could be said of the "resistance" side releasing his memo)

      A more devious idea (walking in to conspiracy theory territory here) is that maybe both sides are just playing the court of public opinion as a distraction, when in truth the WH really isn't that divided. Think Good Cop Bad Cop, or the Party creating the fictional rebel Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984

    234. Re: Yes, they should by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Just a FYI. Thinking Ivan is Ok, is delusional

    235. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Whoever wrote it needs to go. The adults in the room comment is just a dig. I can't fathom working for a boss where I have to be that duplicitous around. If this person is unwilling to quit and give his or her reasons publicly, then this is just another opporunist

    236. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their base sees and hears you say that. And that's exactly why he won. Keep it up and you'll never have your way again.

      You're the ones who hate the public, but you've been making it painfully obvious for so long that your projection of that sentiment onto their chosen representatives is failing.

      Your hubris is catching up with you, and this is why some of you genuinely call him the next Hitler. Because you fear how you would be punished: how YOU would punish others. "It's time to start killing conservatives." Hmm?

      For those of you who genuinely believe he would do to you what you would do to him, you should probably not keep pushing your luck.

    237. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " People keep blaming the Electoral College, but that's not the real problem."

      Seems to me that it is 100% of the problem. 3.5 million people didn't get their vote counted... well counted yes, but it didn't matter. That's more people than the state of Mississippi. More than the state of arkansas... and I'm sure a few other states.

      I get WHY the electoral college was created, but we are so far past the point of every needing it again that the only way this country will heal is if we make voting fair. I don't want to hear about the darn "Republic". People created this system and people can improve upon it. Currently it totally sucks for the majority...

      We can have our cake and eat it to. We just need to let computers use population density to draw the maps. EVERY YEAR. But the current electoral college only serves to give people in smaller states a LARGER vote than the rest of us. So of course ya'll want to keep it. The hell with the majority right? It's all about ME ME ME. --- That is Republicanism in a nut shell.

      And BTW. I will NEVER forgive republicans for this. Anyone still remaining a Republican obviously supporters Trump or they need to be switching sides and voting Democrat so we have some real checks and balances. Maybe some day the Republicans will be honest and rational and not cheaters (gerrymandering, denying supreme court picks, etc, etc).. but in my entire life time (44 years) I have seen them get progressively worse. Yes I have voted R many times in the past. Never again though. This party is full of racist scum bags that put party and ideology WAY WAY above their country.

      So point blank. Will YOU as a 'Republican' step up and vote for Democrats to help preserve our country? If not then I certainly won't give you, or any one like you respect.

      BTW I'm not a democrat. I've alway's been an independent. But after watching Republican ignorance rise after Obama got elected I was done. Never again will I support such a corrupt party just because of some darned ideology.

    238. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you just proved his point with that circle jirk of a comment. Enjoy Trump for a second term you clueless clown.

    239. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly is it burning, except for all the riots and violence that the "resist" thugs are doing? They're the ones doing all the burning. The economy's doing very well, relations with NK are more promising, and respect-wise, Russia has stopped buzzing our ships and Iran has stopped attacking our ships in the Gulf.
      Idiotic tweets are one thing, but the country is not burning. FUD much?

    240. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >>They are sick and tired of their acquaintances screaming on Facebook UNFRIEND ME IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP YOU RACIST BIGOT.

      >>You can't support Trump without supporting racism and bigotry, and supporting racism and bigotry makes one a racist bigot.

      Yes you can. You've kind of validated the person who you responded to.
      Vast majority of Trump supporters don't care about race - this was always a propaganda piece played on the republican, whoever was chosen. Trump cares about legal immigrants vs illegal immigrants. Some people can't understand that, possibly due to all the propaganda or living in their bubbles.

      There are plenty of black/hispanic/non-white Trump supporters - you guys call them 'uncle tom' or rather disconnectedly/elitedly say 'they don't know what is good for them'. The irony.

      People are walking away when they see democrat talk vs action. Democrats want to keep people victims, blaming someone else, in a massive social pyramid of "more-victim than them". They haven't helped African American people - it's been one big talk parade. Trump is delivering for them. Results talk, bullshit walks.

      But you won't get that, as you're in some elitist bubble , away from the common folk.

    241. Re: Yes, they should by greythax · · Score: 1

      It is worth noting that there is another aspect to the electoral college that those who benefit from it fail to acknowledge. It is totally possible and legal for an elector sworn to vote for a candidate that wins their state to vote for a different candidate. It is entirely possible to win the majority of electoral seats, and the popular vote, and still lose the election because enough electors decided to vote contrary to their pledge. These are known as faithless electors. And before you say it would never happen, it has before, in 1836 .

      Over the years there have been more than 150 faithless electors. Not super common, but also not unheard of.

      Now, you might be fine with a small cabal of unelected, unaccountable people deciding your leaders, but I'm not. I find a lot of people who really support the electoral college don't really understand how it functions.

      It is true that the system hasn't been exploited very effectively... yet. But, considering there are so many other forms of fairly electing candidates we could transition to, which don't involve more than half of the population feeling as if they aren't being represented, I can't think of a good reason to keep it around.

    242. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      McCain wasn't an American patriot. He was a globalist. Read his address to the Naval cadets. He calls for them to go forth and be enforcers for the corporatist state.

      McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five. Remember when he ran for President and the same people worshipping him today were calling him a Nazi? Are you wearing your "Sarah Palin is a Cunt" tee-shirt today? The Reclusive Leftist blogged in 2009 that it was a "major shock" to discover "the extent to which so many self-described liberals actually despise working people."

      Seriously, the idea that there are people working behind the scenes to keep the country running on a relatively straight course, and that these people actually hate the public, is absurd.

      ""Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. l could SMELL the Trump support."

      "Yup. Out to lunch with -------- We both hate everyone and everything."

      "Finally, and related to nothing, but I just saw my first Bernie Sanders bumper sticker. Made me want to key the car."

      "I would recommend everybody go out and get an academic book published last year called "What Washington Gets Wrong," and it's two scholars from Johns Hopkins University who do a massive survey of senior unelected executives in government, basically the deep state, and asks them a bunch of questions. And as the authors describe the deep state has contemptuous attitudes towards the average American."

      "They think they're far less educated than they actually are," he continued. "They think they are far more dependent than they actually are. They're arrogant, they believe, and say in the surveys if the American people want one thing, and they think it's wrong, they're going to push something else. There's a massive disconnect, and the deep state is real, and it's a threat to our republic form of government."

      http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30027384-what-washington-gets-wrong

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    243. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tax cuts for the super wealthy, benefit cuts and mediciad work requirements for the rest.

    244. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying to remove him from power, knowing you will fail and embolden him, simply out of principal regardless of consideration of the consequence is morally bankrupt.

      It is playing simply by the rules and the enemy has already shown a willingness to violate the rules at every turn.

      If Trump is willing to throw out all the rules, then you have to expect that others will at least make an honest assessment of how and when to play by the rules and how and when to bide time.

    245. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get my family freindly Goat C shirt! ~ CaptainCork

    246. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, and the American people already made their minds up when they elected Trump a president.

      Don't make it out to be something it's not. If you pardon the round numbers, about 63 million people voted for Trump. There were an estimated 250 million eligible voters for 2016, with about 325 million total population. So, the people who voted for Trump make up about 25% of eligible voters, and less than 20% of the total population. He won the election, but don't make it out like he has some sort of super-mandate from the general public. The vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of eligible voters (75%) did not vote for him.

      Anyway, if you want to talk about whether or not Americans think that people in the government should help steer Trump in the right direction, instead of just leaving any and every decision up to him, consider the fact that his approval rating is in the high 30s. A majority of Americans do not approve of the job he is doing, right now.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    247. Re: Yes, they should by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Eligible voters who failed to cast a ballot effectively voted for âoeI donâ(TM)t care, leave me out of this!â

    248. Re: Yes, they should by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Sorry, posted on a tablet, did not realize it would insert characters incompatible with the enlightened Slashdot system.

    249. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They get to live in gated communities and in expensive apartments surrounded by other upper-middle class liberals, and don't have to interact with those Muslim migrants who are completely unwilling to assimilate into Western culture like the working class who lives around them.

      That sounds like the sort of thing that somebody who never interacts with Muslims would say.

      As the sort of person who interacts daily with Muslims, I think you have that backwards. Those of us who know them as our neighbors think of them as Americans, which is why we are so hell bent on not keeping them out of our country. It's really the people who have never met one, who only know about them from the likes of Fox News, that are so keen to keep them out!

      I see Muslims at the grocery store all the time, mostly buying the same sort of foods I buy. I would hardly notice that their cart doesn't have any alcohol or pork. My kids go to school with Muslim kids and the only way you'd know is by their last names. Those kids go to the same parks, play the same games, and watch the same TV shows as my kids.

      So why would you think they don't assimilate? Is it because, as immigrants, they have accents? Is it because they wear different clothing (like head scarves)? Are those microaggressions? Do they trigger you? Is that why Muslims upset you so much?

      dom

    250. Re:Yes, they should by nasch · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how relieved you should be. Trump has only turned against Sessions because Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation rather than shutting/slowing it down. If he is replaced, opposing forfeiture will not be a criterion for selecting his replacement.

    251. Re:Yes, they should by nasch · · Score: 1

      They could probably make a lot more money by quitting and writing a book and/or going on the lecture tour.

    252. Re: Yes, they should by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean he gets to claim any kind of mandate from the American people, though, because the simple and unarguable fact is that most Americans didn't want him to be elected.

      It's not an indisputable fact if only 61.4% of Americans voted, and nearly half of those voted for him.

    253. Re:Yes, they should by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Do you want nuclear war? Because this is how you get nuclear war.

      Seriously though, comrade Trump isn't fit to be president, and I thank God that there are people in the Oval Office who can wrangle him into doing as little damage as possible.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    254. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government the American people elected.

      Well, not most of them. Only 62,984,828 people voted for him. Of the 230.6 million eligable voters, that's only 27.3%.

      MORE American people, 65,853,514 people, voted for Hilary. Or 28.5%.

      "The American People" didn't elect this guy, the US electoral college elected him. And his tenor is going about as well as the last guy that lost the popular election but still got into the whitehouse. A lot less corpses though, so that's a plus. That might sound sarcastic, but it's not. Trump hasn't unilaterally declared war on anyone. Lots of dick-waving, but that's so much better than pulling triggers and getting hundreds of thousands of civilians killed and destabilizing a region. The FCC and EPA we can prop back up, but it's hard to undo the damage caused by war.

      (Also, I wouldn't say the American people elected anyone. ~40% of those eligible to vote... simply didn't. That maaaasivly beats out either candidate. Apathy is winning our elections.)

    255. Re: Yes, they should by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Most people didn't vote for Clinton either. Apathy always wins by a huge margin.

    256. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the second the election was decided, the President has been trying to rationalize the results and salvage some argument that he won the popular vote. He has made the popular vote a point of ongoing debate.

      It is clearly of critical importance to him, and deeply humiliating that he lost the vote that he really cared about.

    257. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      Remember, they were spying on Carter Page and everyone within two hops of him with a counter-intelligence FISA warrant for the entire campaign, so if you claim they had no idea about Russia, you're clearly wrong.

      Now, hold on a second. First, Carter Page had been under surveillance since 2014 because of things like this:

      In August 2013, Page wrote, "Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda."

      Naturally, it would make sense that we have people with direct links to hostile governments under surveillance. I mean, we have entire counter-espionage groups focused on people just like him:

      Also in 2013, Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page, and one described him as enthusiastic about business opportunities in Russia but an "idiot".

      They're trying to figure out if he was a spy. Of course he was under surveillance.

      Secondly, what about this:

      After news reports began to appear describing Page's links to Russia and Putin's government, Page stepped down from his role in the Trump campaign. Upon his departure, Trump campaign communications director Jason Miller said of Page, "He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period."

      There you go, the Trump campaign communications directory explicitly said that Page was never part of the campaign. So, why does it matter so much to you that he was under surveillance? Are you suggesting that the Trump campaign was lying about Page's role there?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    258. Re: Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      25th Amendment

      For anyone who is not currently the Vice President, the 25th amendment is not an option for them.

      What you don't fucking do is pretend everything's OK and then steal papers from his desk because you're worried he might sign them.

      As far as we know that's a different issue, and it's obviously dangerous. It may be that the person who did that is also the person who wrote the editorial, but it doesn't sound like it.

      The 25th and impeachment are both cases where Democratic agencies can hold those responsible for the actions to account.

      In theory, sure. In practice, if Congress takes any action at all on virtually anything it would shock the country.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    259. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Could you remind me of the Obama early morning bat shit crazy tweets again. I seem to have forgotten about them.

      Sadly, Obama's nuttiness wasn't limited to tweeting or picking fights with his minions, he screwed us over with bailouts, monetary policy, race baiting, and cronyism.

    260. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. The person who wrote this should resign and nothing should be done about the administration who has tremendous amounts of former staffers. The administration who let's them record conversations. The administration who leaks like a 1980's Chevy. The one who can't stop lying, tweeting or making statements against the constitution. The one who sells our country out to a foreign government.

      Yeah. We need priorities. Who cares about the next coming environmental or labor crisis. Let's go after people who say bad things about Trump and hurt his little baby feelings. We cant let people make the poor little guy sad. How's he going to embarrass the nation if he feels bad?

    261. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the election is decided...by all the people of America

      Well in this case, it clearly didn't work out that way.

      In fairness, half the country didn't vote for Obama.

    262. Re:Yes, they should by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      I'm imagining a federal government full of people who lust for power and money

      Like... the President?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    263. Re: Yes, they should by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      For anyone who is not currently the Vice President, the 25th amendment is not an option for them.

      The 25th Amendment requires a vote by the cabinet. It doesn't have anything to do with the VP except in that the VP is normally the person who takes over. The VP cannot unilaterally invoke it. I'm not sure what point you think you're making, or what you think you're addressing, but you're not correct or posting anything pertaining to the discussion.

      The entire point of having a 25th Amendment is so that there's a transparent process to take over power from Presidents that are unable to do their job. If, as the NYT writer says, the entire Whitehouse is conspiring against the President, they should have enough votes within the cabinet to 25th him. That they're conspiring without 25thing means they're violating the constitution and ensuring the rules put in place to ensure handovers are democratically accountable are being broken; they are evil people, and they need to held to account.

      In theory, sure. In practice, if Congress takes any action at all on virtually anything it would shock the country.

      Well, yes, but can you really see the 25th ever being invoked when it's not reasonable? The fact Trump is incapable of doing his job is uncontroversial, so no, of course Congress will take only administrative actions if the 25th is invoked.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    264. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because Trump beat Clinton 2 years ago does not mean he has the majority support of the American people. Most people did not vote for him.

      What is your point? Most people are idiots and their kids eat tide pods.

    265. Re:Yes, they should by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      Why don't you consider that sufficient to answer the question?

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    266. Re:Yes, they should by greythax · · Score: 1

      I know I am feeding the troll here, but I just can't help myself.

      "We don't like the middle class lefties looking down on us, so we are going to vote for the rich guy who thinks so little of us, he claims he could shoot someone in public and not loose our vote!"

    267. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Left and Right don't mean anything anymore. Open borders and flooding the labor market with cheap unskilled labor is a right wing idea. Free trade and globalization were also right wing/libertarian ideas adopted by the left. About the only thing that separates the left from the right now is whether they favor social programs and environmental protection. That along with social preferences for things such as gay marriage.

    268. Re:Yes, they should by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Apparently that word is used somewhat frequently by Mike Pence. Although TBH that's also a great way to throw someone off the trail; just pick a few idioms used by someone more visible than you.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    269. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 0

      McCain wasn't an American patriot.

      You really believe that, don't you? It's sad that you let people convince you of things which are obviously not true.

      He was a globalist.

      You're going to need to define exactly what you mean by that. Because if you're accusing McCain of being "a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world," then yeah, he's like the vast majority of everyone else on the planet who thinks beyond their own neighborhood.

      He calls for them to go forth and be enforcers for the corporatist state.

      You're full of the bullshit lines. If you believe that the US that McCain believes in is a "corporatist state", then sure you can draw that conclusion. But I don't think that's how he saw America, and when he was telling people to defend America and freedom and democracy, I don't think he was talking about some "corporatist state" that exists somewhere in your mind. But, if you really want to reference that speech, here's a nice quote:

      We have to fight against propaganda and crackpot conspiracy theories. We have to fight isolationism, protectionism, and nativism. We have to defeat those who would worsen our divisions. We have to remind our sons and daughters that we became the most powerful nation on earth by tearing down walls, not building them.

      Yeah, wow, what a major asshole, right? Sorry, but you look like a fool.

      Remember when he ran for President and the same people worshipping him today were calling him a Nazi?

      No. I don't see people "worshipping" him today at all, actually. Just using him and his words as an example of what we should aspire to, instead of all of the propaganda and division and petty hate. I also remember being proud that my Senator which I respect was running, but disappointed in his choice of VP to the point that I couldn't vote for him.

      ""Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. l could SMELL the Trump support."

      "Yup. Out to lunch with -------- We both hate everyone and everything."

      Right on man, I can also put quotation marks around random statements.

      "Finally, and related to nothing, but I just saw my first Bernie Sanders bumper sticker. Made me want to key the car." [magaimg.net]

      What the hell is that? Am I looking at some sort of redacted text message log, with no names or numbers, which someone scanned into a computer and then couldn't figure out how to rotate, and are you really trying to suggest that this is some sort of evidence of a conspiracy theory that the US is run by people who, all of them, I mean 100% of them, absolutely hate any and every American? Really, why are you posting this?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    270. Re:Yes, they should by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      So yes this is still Deep State. At least until the coward identifies their self so we can see what position they actually hold and when they actually started working in their position.

      Great. Since you like applying the principle of "guilty until proven innocent", I'm going to apply it to you. You wrote the article, deep state coward.

      Now prove your innocence.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    271. Re:Yes, they should by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Invoking the 25th Amendment isn't a "coup".

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    272. Re: Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      The 25th Amendment requires a vote by the cabinet. It doesn't have anything to do with the VP except in that the VP is normally the person who takes over.

      Are you reading the same Section 4 of the amendment that I am? I'm not sure you are.

      The VP cannot unilaterally invoke it.

      I did not suggest it was unilateral. I did suggest it required the VP to participate.

      I'm not sure what point you think you're making, or what you think you're addressing, but you're not correct or posting anything pertaining to the discussion.

      Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Go ahead, cite Section 4 and explain how the 25th can be invoked without the support and action of the VP. I'll save you the trouble:

      Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

      Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

      That requires (Vice President) + (majority of cabinet members OR other body approved by Congress). So, if there is no VP support, is the 25th an option? Let me know, I'm eager to hear an expert's opinion since I'm not posting anything pertaining to the discussion.

      I mean, surely this isn't the first time you've read the actual text, right? You just forgot what it said, right?

      If, as the NYT writer says, the entire Whitehouse is conspiring against the President, they should have enough votes within the cabinet to 25th him.

      Doesn't mean anything if the VP doesn't kick off the process, though, does it? Right?

      It requires more than the cabinet. It requires the VP plus either a majority of the 15 cabinet members, or another body approved by Congress.

      OK, tell me again how I'm wrong. I'm waiting with anticipation.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    273. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Like... the President?

      Yes! Like the president! And like pretty much everybody else in the federal government, politician or high level bureaucrat alike, of either party or no party.

      Which part of "a federal government full of people who lust for power and money" was too hard for you to understand?

    274. Re: Yes, they should by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      The reason they would rather run circles around Trump than invoke the 25th is simple: he still has the support of the Republican electorate (like 85-90% or something).

      Their power is tied to Trump, that's why they can't get rid of him.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    275. Re: Yes, they should by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Personally, I look at the electoral college stopping Clinton from being POTUS as working perfectly as intended when she appealed to sexism (muh vagina), fear (Trump is a nazi), and bigotry (deplorables). Everything you can associate with Trump you could associate with Clinton. She pandered to a mob and insulted anyone that wasn't "With Her" after cheating everyone.

      It's a good thing a populist so divisive and corrupt didn't get into office. Electoral College worked.

    276. Re:Yes, they should by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, it means government employees (civil servants, military, law enforcement etc) running the state, effectively removing control from the elected civilian government.

      A key aspect is that they are working together, not individually.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    277. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he unfit for office? ("I AM CAPTAIN KIRK!")

        Or do they just not like his policies? If the former, it should be easy to determine. If the latter, they kind of suck in a paternalistic way; "I know what's best for the country so much that I'll make the deep state myth into the truth!"

    278. Re:Yes, they should by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Nothing problematic about disliking a betrayal of trust.

      Even if the anonymous coward was correct in everything he said and did. The fact that he is doing it in a shady manner undermines anything he thinks he represents. Nothing good comes from lies or deceit which is precisely what this anonymous coward is doing.

    279. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plagiarism: it's the Trumpist way.

    280. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. No one forced hillary to ignore Michigan and Wisconsin. She lost despite several forgetable retweets by foreign instigators. She also paid for a foreign agent to fabricate a dossier as oppo research and then floated it around as fact, which isnt exactly kosher.

    281. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how many of those eligible voters stayed home and not vote trump because they are in a solidly blue state? Probably millions. I know I did, but now that we're all sick of the whining about "muh electoral college", you can bet every single trump support will be out voting in 2020.

    282. Re: Yes, they should by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      To elaborate:

      Under 1/2 of people are even eligible to vote.

      Only around 2/3 of those actually voted.

      Under 1/2 of those voted for Trump.

      So under (1/2)*(2/3)*(1/2) = 1/6 people voted for Trump.

      (Looking at the actual numbers it's closer to 1/8, but I'm rounding for simplicity).

      Of course the same is approximately true for Clinton, but the takeaway is that Trump (like most presidents in recent history) governs at the behest of only a small fraction of the population, and can hardly be said to have a mandate from the masses.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    283. Re:Yes, they should by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I was going to make this same comment. Wish I could mod you up.

      There is coalition of states who have agreed that they will all change their elector assignment process if enough states sign on to the agreement, but it's pretty much only blue states who have signed on to it, and there's no way enough states will sign on to trigger action unless some red states get with the program too.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    284. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obama garnered substantial majorities of those voting in both of his elections.

    285. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, a war was fought over this question...

    286. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was put in place to make sure Slaveholding states had more voice. That along with the 3/5ths language in the census

    287. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At the beginning of our country up through the early 20th century, America was a largely rural population. But the remainder of the 20th Century saw the majority of people move to cities and suburbs of cities. The effect of this was to give those remaining in rural areas outsized power.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/...

    288. Re:Yes, they should by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      So how about a specific example: pharma lobbyists and the FDA cooperating to drag out the process of allowing new generic drugs, which are compounds already tested and approved for use, to be sold, thereby giving companies like Mylan the ability to overcharge people for medications they need because the competing generics are rotting away in the approval pipeline.

    289. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The election is decided by the States. Thus, the Electoral College.

      The election is in fact decided by the popular vote on each state.

      The Federal Government is an invention of the States.

      The US Constitution literally says otherwise in the first three words.

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Idiots like you who never passed a Civics Class shame us all.

    290. Re:Yes, they should by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      Sadly, Obama's nuttiness wasn't limited to tweeting or picking fights with his minions, he screwed us over with bailouts,

      That were paid back with interest.

      monetary policy,

      That got us out of a recession.

      race baiting, and cronyism.

      Can't say I remember any race baiting (sure your not thinking of Trump here?) and cronyism is kind of a political thing (Trump manages this just fine as well).

    291. Re:Yes, they should by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      The left managed to swing the GOP nomination to the worst of the candidates,

      Eh? Because the Dems chose Hilary the Republicans were convinced that Trump was the correct choice for the job? How does that work? You yourself didn't vote for him in the primaries, so you could probably argue why those who did were foolish.

      ...but their own was still so bad he beat her easily.

      Again, what? As a candidate running for office without the ability to gain enough enthusiasm to win despite Trump's obvious failings, yeah. But to actually run the country? Despite it leaving such a bad taste in people's mouths, we can do a lot worse than an entitled, competent, policy wonk as president. In fact, we just did. It's hilarious to me that the Right was able to cast such a meh candidate as Clinton as some reprehensible devious evil that needed to be defeated at all costs. And that enough voters were stupid enough to buy into it to elect an infantile incompetent incapable of thinking of anything outside of his own personal gain.

      And an "easy" win is a bit of a stretch. Getting 304 vs 227 electoral votes with many of those key battleground states won at a razor's edge while losing the popular vote is not the same as beating her easily. A fair win, yes, but not easy.

      I certainly didn't vote for him in the Primaries, but in the general election, he was the far better option and I had no qualms about voting for him.

      So in a choice between two candidates with the analogous qualities of a bad cold and possibly terminal cancer you chose cancer. Well congratulations and fuck you.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    292. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have an American translation for that garbage? I tried to read it, I really did, but all I kept seeing was "pompous pompous pompous, better than you, pompous pompous, tea and crumpets."

    293. Re: Yes, they should by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      What? You're proposing the tyranny of the majority, my friend. The system was set up precisely to avoid what you're saying. :)

      Nothing of the sort; in particular, I'm not proposing that the electoral process be changed. I'm merely saying that Trump's occasional moral claim to some sort of "mandate of the people" is invalid given the facts. If you want to reasonably claim a "mandate from the people", you should actually have the support of a majority of the people, not a 39% approval rating and a 60% disapproval rating.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    294. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more votes for Trump on LA County alone than numerous states.

      People who whine about population forget things like that.

      Better think what happens when rotten boroughs and rampant malapportionment make those people talk revolution.

    295. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Trump was elected President. Not some staffer, not some sanctimonious hypocrite who thinks that their wisdom will save us from out bad votes. NO NO NO.

      And just to put it into perspective....we could have had Hillary and here highest-bidder, business as usual cronies in the Oval Office.

      Sad. Really sad.

    296. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every prior presidential election was decided using the same rules.

      Nope. The electoral college has been changed no less than 4 times in the Constitution and multiple times by states.

      See the attempt in Pennsylvania to gerrymander.

      Trump had nothing to do with the current immigration laws. All he did was enforce the law created and passed by Congress.

      Trump's own executive orders call you a liar. First the Muslim ban. Then his child separation policy. Now his birth certificate holdings.

      All executive decisions.

      Stop lying you shit.

    297. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Electoral college has zero functional means to effect that goal.

      You might as well say a pebble in a stream does the same thing.

    298. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with a lot of what you say here. I'm a net benefactor of globalism (although I think we all benefit in ways that are not obvious such as not having to fight in World Wars every 30-40 years) and I would undoubtedly have a more negative view of it if my job were affected. I do think you are being a little too generous though in your description of the working class Trump voter. My brother-in-law is a huge Trump fan. He lives in Upstate NY, has a highschool education, and works in a factory. He doesn't make a lot but he has benefits, owns his home, and can afford to take a trip now and then. By every definition he's white working class. He also complains bitterly about how the blacks at his job don't pull their weight and how when he's at the airport the "dot heads" cruise right through security. Everyone, particularly minorities, in his eyes are getting theirs but him. There are probably more Canadians living illegally in his town than Mexicans. He doesn't live in a neighborhood that has been overrun by immigrants, when I go to his house I only see white neighbors, and yet if you heard him talk your would think the U.S. is being overrun by brown people. So when I look at his perception of reality versus reality the only conclusion I can come up with is that he's a fucking racist. Incidentally, many of his friends and coworkers have the same grievances as him. I think Trump did an excellent job of crafting a message that really resonated with people like my brother-in-law: there are people out there that don't look like you that want to destroy this country. I mean the guy came out day 1 of his campaign calling Mexican rapists and murderers. I believe (and hope frankly) my brother-in-law and those like him represent his strongest base. I know not everyone who voted for Trump did so because they are racist/xenophobe/bigots/alt-right but I think a significant number of people DID vote for him for those reasons. That's why we suddenly see emboldened hate groups crawling out from underneath their rocks.

    299. Re:Yes, they should by s122604 · · Score: 1

      These people should be flogged
      continue on Mr President, the American people are behind you!
      And please do not stop tweeting, we need to hear directly from YOU and not the lying lib media!

    300. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you passed your civics class or not is irrelevant. You still show a complete misunderstanding of just who â"We the peopleâ" are in that opening phrase. It literally doesnâ(TM)t say what you said it does. We the people are the States first, before the Federal Government. Thatâ(TM)s how the framers saw it...they were State Representatives for goodness sakes.

    301. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blind faith is always suspicious. Patriotism is always suspicious. There is nothing more stupid than somebody born somewhere. Proud to be born somewhere? ridiculous.

    302. Re: Yes, they should by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Everything you can associate with Trump you could associate with Clinton.

      I disagree. Hillary said she had a public and a private position. Trump wears his beliefs on his sleeve.

    303. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The well oiled slander machine is up and running. Is it paid astroturfers? Is it alt-right trolls copypasta-ing their little brains out? A crappy mix of both?
      I wonder if they are trying to call into question Watergate?

    304. Re:Yes, they should by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      . So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.

      This is the kind of ignorant rhetoric we expect from Trump's remaining supporters. Democrats have nothing to do with this.

      The senior staff are all conservative appointees made by Trump himself. Some are establishment Republicans; some are not. But they are all his people, chosen for their expertise and experience.

      So what is the bottom line here? It's simple, really. He cannot earn the loyalty of the people he chose.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    305. Re:Yes, they should by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
      I don't know enough of the electoral college system to really have a definite opinion about its merits(I'm not a US citizen or resident). I do know that, as far back as I can remember, every US presidential election has had groups complaining that the electoral college system caused someone to lose who "should have" won. The electoral college results have rarely, if ever, completely matched the popular vote results. As I understand it, this is by deliberate intent so that more populous areas can't over-whelm low population density regions. It's an attempt at curbing the "tyranny of the majority". I just can't say how well that is working in practice.

      As for your hypothetical scenario of voters staying home, isn't this largely already the case? It's my impression that voter apathy is a huge problem in the US and what I found on Wikipedia seems to support this. From what I can see, voter turnout in presidential elections is usually between 50 and 60 percent and it's been that way for years A very large minority apparently can't be bothered to participate in the democratic process. Near as I can tell, that means that the more fanatical elements (right or left) end up having far more political influence then their mere numbers would suggest. Whether it is the radical right or the loony left, they do a better job of getting out the vote within their demographic.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    306. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [...] I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.

      In your wet dreams. Have you read the op-ed? [nytimes.com]

      Setting aside its erudite and eloquent style -- hardly qualities one would expect of Trump -- its content is hardly the kind of commentary Trump would ever allow to be said of him. He's hyper-controlling of his image. He would never allow a negative op-ed to be written if he had any control over it. "False-flag" op-eds are just not something he's into. If he needs to write more than 280 characters, he's just not interested.

      I agree, it is very unlikely that yesterday's anonymous editorial was a false-flag written by Donald Trump. For example, what do the following words have in common?


      exasperated, adversarial, discernible, discourse, diligently, amorality, precipitate, impetuous, malign, like-minded, whims, astute, hellbent, unsung, tribalism, inclinations, misguided, autocrats, espoused, impulsiveness, moored, thwarting, civility and lodestar

      Answer: None of these words are found (or at least never spelled correctly) in trumptwitterarchive going back to 2012 but all of them are in yesterday's anonymous Whitehouse insider opinion piece.

      So who wrote it? My guess is James Mattis. His 2017 commencement speech delivery at West Point was subdued but the words were powerful and showed that he understood and cherished the kind of honor, integrity and leadership that seem to be an anachronism. I can also see why Donald Trump will soon fire someone who would write something so far beyond his understanding of what American leadership and sacrifice really means:

      ...In terms of serving something larger than yourself, yours is the same oath that was taken by the young men of ancient Athens. They pledged to “fight for the ideals and sacred things of [the] city...to revere and obey the city’s laws" and "do [our] best to incite a like [reverence and] respect” in others, and to pass on their city-state far "greater and more beautiful than" they had received it.3 In that sense, it is fitting the cadet cover you wear today, for the last time, features the helmet of the Greek goddess Athena, echoing respect of the civic duty that’s found in a democracy, and in a nation, in President Lincoln’s words, "of the people, by the people, for the people."

      After four years at West Point, you understand what it means to live up to an oath; you understand the commitment that comes with signing a blank check to the American people, payable with your life.

      My fine young soldiers, a few miles northwest of Washington, D.C. where I work today, at Antietam Battlefield Cemetery is a statue of a union soldier standing at rest, and overlooking his comrades’ graves. It is inscribed with the words, “Not for themselves, but for their country.” How simple that thought. So long as our nation breeds patriots like you, defenders who look past the hot political rhetoric of our day and rally to our flag, that Army tradition of serving our country will never die.

      To a high and remarkable degree, the American people respect you.

      We in the Department of Defense recognize that there are a lot of passions running about in our country, as there ought to be in a vibrant Republic. But for those privileged to wear the cloth of our nation, to serve in the United States Army, you stand the ramparts -- unapologetic, apolitical, defending our experiment in self-governance... ...
      If you wish to be a credit to our nation and to your family, you must carry West Point’s ethos everywhere you go and practice every day the integrity that builds your character -- for when destiny tap

    307. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could not be more wrong. The power of the Executive is vested the person who is the President. The entire Executive Branch works for the President which means the person holding that office. That's why the election of the President is so important. It's also why this idea that he can obstruct justice by firing people who work for him is absurd; if he needs to be held accountable that's the job of the Legislature and the Judiciary.

    308. Re:Yes, they should by Aeyan · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but I'm sure they were no true Scot- ...Americans.

      --
      I believe in the cake.
    309. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please continue telling yourself that if it makes you feel better but not voting is also a vote. Approximately 40% of the country was content to let the other 60% make their choice for them and then live with it. They didn't vote for Trump but they didn't vote against him either thus they were willing to accept him as President if he was elected.

    310. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro. Sounds like you found yourself a mantra.

    311. Re:Yes, they should by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 0

      That doesn't change the fact that most Trump voters think Obama is a Muslim. They believe lies and vote accordingly.

    312. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Da comrade! Ze McCain was ze horrible mens. MAGA!!!
      By the way, are talking about the Heritage fund study where they found socialized medicine in America would cost 30 trillion, but what we have now would cost 32 trillion?

    313. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve, is that you ?

    314. Re:Yes, they should by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      No. It's the DNC and RNC running scared that someone will force/trigger them to dump the dirt they have on each other, ending both parties.

      Both establishments HATE Trump.

      My money is on Sessions, perhaps one of his cronys.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    315. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      That were paid back with interest.

      That's debatable, but it's also irrelevant. The problem is that irresponsible bankers, CEOs, and homebuyers, people who should have gone bankrupt and lost their shirts, were kept in wealth and power.

      That got us out of a recession.

      All recessions end, the question is how quickly and how well, and the recovery from this recession has been dismally back. We aren't even back to pre-recession employment levels. The recovery was worse than what Obama himself predicted would happen if we did nothing. That is, the recovery is piss-poor even by Obama's own standards.

      Can't say I remember any race baiting (sure your not thinking of Trump here?)

      We can debate at length what he did, but the simple fact is that race relations deteriorated massively under Obama.

      and cronyism is kind of a political thing (Trump manages this just fine as well).

      Trump has done nothing on the massive scale of the ACA, cronyism that ensures continued massive profits to insurers, the AMA, and drug manufacturers.

    316. Re:Yes, they should by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Woodward claims to have interviewed William Casey while Casey was in a coma, near death.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    317. Re:Yes, they should by eaglesrule · · Score: 0

      Why are people so willing to take this at face value, especially during a critical time leading up to primaries when attacks by the opposition should be expected.

      The piece itself reads exactly in the same style as editorials I'd expect to read on NYT or the Huffington Post, loaded with pejoratives and subjective terms and hyperbole that comes from the practice of trying to hold a reader's attention. Specifically referencing "resistance" and "enemy of the people" itself should raise suspicions, along with "loadstar" that seems like an obvious and deliberate shibboleth.

      My money is on this being a fraud, and "raising awareness" will be the excuse when it comes out of the wash. The unintended consequences of this should be interesting.

    318. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that invoking the 25th amendment is thought by insiders to create a constitutional crisis. It wouldn't. But it would be the end of their careers if they fail to get the votes in Congress. And that's what they are really worried about.

    319. Re:Yes, they should by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Saying it doesn't make it so. Neither does your upvotes which also reeks of childish denialism.

      Go ahead and deny that if the situation was reverse, that you'd still be championing for the popular vote and not a republic. The overflowing well of hypocrisy itself is enough cause to oppose your tribal faction.

    320. Re:Yes, they should by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Exactly all that you'd expect from a NYT editorial.

    321. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      racism is the new sex appeal

    322. Re: Yes, they should by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Also, your signature is retarded. As illustrated by my own post, intolerance does indeed apply to "persons". I do not tolerate "people" who suggest that they understand things they don't. In other words, I'm intolerant to those who make ignorant statements on political topics while pretending to be knowledgeable.

      To add another level to this, a normal American English speaker says "people" ( as illustrated by a bunch of nerds on the subject https://english.stackexchange.... ) and I don't think the British do differently so you just look like a weirdo for that as well.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    323. Re:Yes, they should by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It's insufficient because it doesn't specify _which_ are the specific practices or policies objected, nor the specific policies sought. I'm afraid it resembles the meandering goals of the democratic party in the last presidential election, and is likely to be as successful. This kind of unaimed bureaucratic meddling can be very destructive for the _next_ president, and for entirely innocent bystanders whose paperwork might simply happen to pass through the White House without Donald Trump's deliberate interference.

    324. Re: Yes, they should by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      No, he's the bald, clueless, sociopathic company CEO of Dilbert.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    325. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black male techie here, let's just keep it ignoring that 13% black male electorate that voted for this guy.

      We're just a bunch of self racists that can't think for themselves and libs definitely have the moral high ground for what's best for us. {Eyeroll}

    326. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay special attention to the parts that create the Electoral College and the US Senate, both of which were explicitly designed to limit the impact of mob rule.

      Fixed that for you.

    327. Re:Yes, they should by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Great post. Thanks for it.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    328. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      drinkypoo, you are twisting words in ways not originally intended, and you know it. This kind of crap is exactly why people despise the upper class/media machine that we're all forced to listen to every day - and you're being a damned part of it here.

      You can't support Trump without supporting racism and bigotry, and supporting racism and bigotry makes one a racist bigot.

      How come you can create such ignorant generalizations but scream when anyone else points out some fairly obvious coincidences? This is the kind of crap we hate to see - extremely intolerant and divisive.

      I've read a lot of your posts on /., you're a smart person, but every once in a while you put your brain on pause and vomit out this drivel. You're better than this. Please stop it.

    329. Re:Yes, they should by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets

      Not really. Deep State connotes a huge conspiracy, mostly bureaucracy based, where the agenda of an unelected power group gets expressed in government operations.

      This guy is more like a deluded member of an exclusive conspiracy, without an infrastructure which will exist long after elected politicians' terms run out, and specifically formulated to deal directly with problems posed by Trump's unstable policy diktats.

      The Intelligence community can be "Deep State". The leftovers after McMasters, Cohen, and Tillerson are pretentious conspirators.

      So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP

      Eh. Its certainly a possibility. But I don't think it will do a "great" job of either bringing in votes or suppressing a 5th column.

      The question is what did the "conspirator" expect to gain by exposing the existence of a conspiracy against Trump, and what did the NY Times gain by posting an anonymous source with a bedtime story on their Op Ed pages? The NYT isn't exactly based on the National Enquirer model of journalism.

      Hardcore conspirators know the first rule of Fight Club. I'm inclined to think that whomever wrote it, if high level, is a dipshit for an idealist, and more likely lower level Walter Mitty.

      Perhaps it was necessary to trigger some sort of signal to coalesce a cabal of Republican legislators to work towards an eventual Impeachment or 25A action. But its just as likely to appease the conscience of troubled Republicans to not take action ("Its okay, there's a plan in place...").

      It could also be some Jedi mind trick to further unhinge Trump by stimulating his paranoia. I consider this highly likely.

      and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.

      No chance of that. You must be one of those morons who think our current slate of Republican legislators have integrity.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    330. Re:Yes, they should by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      If my employer were unhinged enough to need to be undermined in this way and I was aware of it, then I'd be a pretty compelling witness for an impeachment or a 25th amendment action, and that'd clearly be the more ethical choice./quote.
      It's not a choice at all until and unless Congress chooses to begin such an action. If they don't do that, the choice is to throw yourself out of the bus and under it, or stay on board and try to encourage the driver to not be so reckless.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    331. Re:Yes, they should by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      A president can launch a war without approval from any other branch of the government but the president has 90 days to justify his actions to congress at which time Congress could defund the military operation.

      Not launch a war, initiate a military action. If it gets concluded within 90 days, nobody cares what the PotUS did. It could start a full fledged world war, but that's what happens when the Congress decided to delegate its war powers to the executive branch.

      And all those who have hounded Trump since he was elected are ready and willing to break any law to remove him from office.

      Break what law? Foaming at the mouth much?

      The ends justify the means is the motto of the Trump protesters.

      Said the party that refused to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for over a year because they didn't think they were being partisan when not executing their Constitutional duties.

      In their world Trump doesn't deserve the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

      Not every American is in the financial position to violate the Emoluments clause of the CotUS. And a PotUS that would choose to orphan 500 children to discourage refugees from seeking asylum has neither the character or discretion to be treated like a person of good standing in society. Unfortunately, that is not how the CotUS works either. Every scumbag in the US gets the same legal rights delinated in the CotUS.

      Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him.

      That is a legal standard to be applied in the courts. OJ Simpson was acquited of murder, but that doesn't mean I have an ethical obligation to treat him as such.

      The right to protect against self incrimination doesn't apply.

      Compelling Trump to testify to a grand jury is not the courts compelling him to self-incriminate. He can invoke his 5th amendment rights at any time to the grand jury. The CotUS does not recognise an individual's right to lie in a criminal investigation.

      And Trump will be gone within a few years

      Assuming he steps down peaceably after showing gross contempt to the rule of law.

      and the people who lost to him in the election have refused to examine the real reasons

      This does stick in my craw...

      They have also not reflected on the fact that as bad as Trump is just how bad did the other side need to be to lose?

      The Democrats did nothing that justifies how the Republicans have abandoned their responsibilities to the CotUS and good governance. The Democrats lost both houses of Congress and the executive branch because their leaders are fucking incompetent.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    332. Re:Yes, they should by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Point 2. The U.S.A. is Representative Democracy, not a direct democracy.

      I would call the USA a Republic, not even a representative democracy, because there are rights structured to protect a minority of citizens against the wishes of the majority.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    333. Re:Yes, they should by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No. That's correct. Saying it does not make it so. The fact that it's true makes it so

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    334. Re:Yes, they should by Interfacer · · Score: 1

      I work in big pharma.

      I am unaware of the specific cases you may be referring to, but whether a component is already tested or not, is only a part of that process. Companies have to prove that a) they make that component exactly as described in the filing, and b) that the result is that particular component. Nothing more, nothing less.

      For example, if I make aspirin, I have to make a filing with the FDA, with all the details of what I am going to make, en with an exact description of the process I am going to use, even going so far as dimensions of vessels, mixers, etc. the company I work for makes a specific drug that used to require being made in a 1000 liter reactor. We had to refile for approval for our 2000 liter bioreactors. And this was not simply a matter of rubber stamping. It started with a new audit, investigation, approval process etc.

      Even moving a production line to a new plant next door means starting over. When we built our new plant right next to the old one, it took years to get approval. That is just how the regulatory process works. Not just the FDA in the US, but also the FAGG in Europe for example.

      From breaking ground for a new plant to getting approval to distribute is a process that can easily take between 5 and 7 years. And this is because there is the need for guarantees on the process and the product, and not just 'best effort' or 'good enough'

      Also, one of the additional requirements is that a company needs to prove they have all the organizational processes in place to comply with how a pharma company needs to be run. There is a thing called pharamcopeia which describes all the testing you need to have in place, how to deal with test results, how results need to be escalated, etc. You need to have working processes for dealing with exceptions and deviations, batch review and release, etc.

      The product we make can be made by a PHd student with access to a simple million dollar lab. But to make a product that is suitable for intravenous use in compliance with ALL standards, takes a site with about 400 employees, half a billion dollar in initial investment, and ten to 30 million in annual upkeep costs.

      Just saying: getting approval for actual use is orders of magnitude more difficult and time consuming than just making the component in a lab.

    335. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to Trump wiping his ass with the constitution and going on personal attacks against anyone who dares criticize?

      Trumps reprehensible behavior was no bar to being elected.

    336. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the current state of affairs in the US, and even taking Brexit into account, it still seems unlikely that Americans will ever be intelligent enough to interpret written English. You should stick to grunting and pointing.

    337. Re:Yes, they should by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I agree. I recall Seymour Hersh said he made a career out of finding the people who made the distinction that they should be loyal to the constitution first and that they should put loyalty to their boss second. But he also said there are a lot of decent people in government - and in the military.

    338. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump was NOT elected into office by the people.

      He won the electoral college by... wait for it... winning a majority of the votes in the states he took. Ergo, he was voted into office by the people.

      This whining is like losing a basketball game against the Golden State Warriors and complaining that you should have won because you scored more shots, but lost because they scored more 3-pointers. If it would have been a popular vote then his (and Hillary's) campaign strategies would have changed and he probably would have taken the time to have a rally or two in California.

    339. Re:Yes, they should by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's what I said. The majority of US citizens did not vote for him. He did not win the popular vote. You are one dumb motherfucker if you really can't understand this concept , but I suspect you do understand meaning you are also an asshole.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    340. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .1 Outlawing abortion
      2. Gutting all social services
      3. Spending more on the military
      4. Lowering corporate taxes and reducing fiscal oversight
      5. Large scale reduction of the federal government and removal of a majority of federal policies, rules and regulations
      6. Reduced education spending
      7. Privatization of former government projects including infrastructure building, military operations, spaceflight. education, etc.

      1. Assuming it's legal in cases where it's high risk for the mother or a result of rape, I don't see how that's bad. It's not because I'm pro-life in this debate, but more because I'm pro state rights and would prefer to let each state choose and let the public vote with their feet.

      2. We have a glut of services that aren't generally improving anything, take the rate of poverty, for example. Besides, communities and states can support their own and have direct control over their cash rather than giving it to the federal government.

      3. I agree that this one is bad.

      4. The first part is good as there can be more startups. It's been shown time and again that lower corporate taxes increase government tax revenue. The second part can be good or bad, depending on how overbearing the government oversight currently is.

      5. Looks good to me, let states' rights rule.

      6. Fantastic, because we've seen time and again that throwing more money at education isn't helping. We need either a fundamental restructuring or the direct abolition of the Department of Education, and let each state be responsible for its people like it was before 1979.

      7. You know that private companies tend to be much more efficient and productive than government-run programs, right? I mean, sure, any system can be abused but I'd rather just change my provider in a private setting rather than be forced to deal with a shitty agency over and over again.

      So you got 1 out of 7, congrats.

    341. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you said that "he was not elected into office by the people". He was elected by the people according to the established rules of the election. I agree that he did not win the popular vote, but the popular vote is not how it's counted, and you're making it seem like he somehow doesn't deserve to be in office because of this. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

      Also, if you're going to be anal and say things like "the majority of US citizens did not vote for him", I too can be anal and say that the majority of US citizens didn't vote for either of them as 40% of eligible voters didn't vote, while roughly 29% voted for Hillary and 28% for Trump.

      You are one dumb motherfucker if you really can't understand this concept , but I suspect you do understand meaning you are also an asshole.

      And you're must be mentally challenged yourself if you can't see that you managed to contradict yourself in a single sentence, but I'll gladly take the label of asshole if it means disagreeing with people like you.

    342. Re:Yes, they should by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      All this, not to take a new compound through testing but just to assure that your compound is the same one that is already on sale by the original patented manufacturer? There is now way this process should take "5 to seven years."

      Thanks for proving my point for me.

    343. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pssst... your bias is showing.

    344. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're being called racists for being racists. Wanting to maintain racist values is racism.

      Wanting a job is racist?

      No, they're more affected. The industrial jobs leave the "wealthy" states (you know, the ones that pay the taxes that permit the red states to exist and function) first.

      You're nuts, when jobs leave an area it's the poorest people that are most affected. The moderately wealthy usually get less wealthy (sometimes becoming poor), the super wealthy tend to get more wealthy, and the poor actually suffer to even eat.

      With respect to funding other states, if you consider the blue states (taken from the 2016 election) that give more tax dollars than they get back from the federal government (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, New York, Illinois and Minnesota), all except for Minnesota and New York have a total debt/gross state product that's higher than the national average. Looking at the red states that give more than they take, (Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, Utah, Oklahoma and Wyoming), only Ohio meets this criteria, and it's a swing state.

      Maybe the states that "fund everyone else" should be a little more careful with their cash?

    345. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't new, or limited to any one nations government. Try watching some Yes, Minister, and Yes, Prime Minister (the original 80s version, not the terrible remake) Mewling kittens is too generous for these simpletons who think some great secret has been revealed to them.

    346. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really missed the entire point of the parent comment. Congratulations on leading to Trump's election.

    347. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously quitting or going public (which amounts to the same thing) would stop whoever it is from being able to prevent Trump from doing something that is, in their view, literally disasterous for the country. So what do you so? Quit and let the country go up in flames, or try to prevent that? It's not difficult logic to follow. It's not even partisan, given that it is likely a Republican Trump appointee. For example, handing the nuclear codes over to Putin falls under something that it is better to prevent than stop "working under a boss you disagree with"

    348. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I would have thought those statements were infamous by now. They were by the dirty FBI agents who plotted to overturn the result of a democratic election.

      A globalist is one who believes there should be a world government. The USA has the power so it's going to be the one to do get it done. They'll take our money which should be spent on ourselves and spend it on wars instead. Six trillion since 9/11 and things are worse than ever. Imagine us spending that money on nice things instead, like health care and free college.

      Globalists aren't American patriots. They don't believe in the idea of nations. It's a contradiction in terms to have a patriotic globalist - patriots are nationalists. McCain was a globalist. The "threats" he's talking about are US, the American people. God forbid we should want to do something else with our money than make war all over the planet.

      "too many Americans are content to ignore our moral and historical place as world leaders" = who decided we needed to be this in the first place? Certainly not us. Who decided our moral place is world leader? The world hates us! Have you seen the polls? Holy shit. And this was before Trump, by the way. Saudis, Guzzetti, Branco, Pinochet, Chiang, Batista, Battalion, Suharto, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Vang Pao, Somosa, Mobutu .. just a small list of dictators supported by the US.

      âoeYou will be asked to defend Americaâ(TM)s interests overseas, and thereby to defend the ideals that encompass and transcend those interests. You will protect the international order that American politics, with all its inefficiencies and human frailties, has done so much to create."
      Here he is literally calling for them to be mafia enforcers. They're not defending America from invasion by sea. No Barbary pirates. Nope, McCain is telling them to defend globalism.

      "youâ(TM)ll know that to serve this country is to serve its ideals â" the ideals that consider every child on earth as made in the image of God and endowed with dignity and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
      This is pure globalism on display.

      "I have, sometimes unwittingly and often imperfectly, served that cause all my adult life."
      He confesses being a globalist right here. I can't provide more convincing evidence than his own words. It's sad that you let people convince you of things which are obviously not true. Patriotism is the opposite of globalism. Heck, remember a few years ago when we were being told that patriotism was utter stupidity and American patriots are morons? Now suddenly you tell us patriotism is a good thing? Are we in Bizarro World?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    349. Re:Yes, they should by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can't support Trump without supporting racism and bigotry, and supporting racism and bigotry makes one a racist bigot.

      Yes you can.

      No, no you can't. Trump was well-known to be a racist bigot before he ran for president. You can't put your weight behind a racist bigot in the oval office and claim that you don't support racism or bigotry. That's simply not a valid position to take.

      Vast majority of Trump supporters don't care about race

      Then they shouldn't support a racist bigot.

      There are plenty of black/hispanic/non-white Trump supporters

      Yeah, and they're working directly against their own interests, but you get all upset if we call that stupid. Well, it is, and no amount of candy coating can change that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    350. Re:Yes, they should by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      drinkypoo, you are twisting words in ways not originally intended, and you know it.

      I'm revealing their actual meanings, and if you can't see that, then you're in deep denial.

      You can't support Trump without supporting racism and bigotry, and supporting racism and bigotry makes one a racist bigot.

      How come you can create such ignorant generalizations

      Ignorance is believing that you can support a racist bigot who was raised by a Klansman without supporting racism and bigotry. That's not how it works. Giving him your support means he will produce more racist and bigoted actions which affect us all, period.

      The people who voted for Trump because they wanted to "shake things up" are the lowest scum among voters, and now they are scrambling to make excuses for their actions. There are no such excuses. They chose to try to break things for their own amusement, and now they don't want to be blamed for breaking things because it harms their delicate snowflake sensibilities.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    351. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's how you want to define it, sure, but that's not how Trump and other conspiracy idiots use the term Deep State.

    352. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      patriots are nationalists

      No, they are not. Patriots love their country. Nationalists love their country plus think their country/people/culture is superior (read: the masterrace), to the point that that they might think their country should dominate and run the world as some hegemon or shadow government

      Patriotism is the opposite of globalism.

      No, isolationism is the opposite of globalism. Maybe anarchy if we're talking about being opposite on how much government there should be

      Neither patriotism and nationalism are opposites to globalism. It's not a contradiction to be a patriotic globalist or nationalistic globalist. In the former, you pursue a globalized system where countries cooperate while each country's people can continue to love their own country (as patriots) . In the latter, you seek a a globalized system with your country as the center, being the hegemon as said above.

      Heck, remember a few years ago when we were being told that patriotism was utter stupidity and American patriots are morons?

      No, I don't remember that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it happened.

      Now suddenly you tell us patriotism is a good thing?

      No, I don't think he's saying that. He's just saying McCain was a patriot who loved his country, not a globalist who hated the country and its people as you insist.

      Telling you who McCain is/was isn't a statement on the goodness or smartness of the thing he is.

      Are we in Bizarro World?

      We are in the normal world, where worlds have meanings, and if you took the time to comprehend them, you would find that other people actually aren't that crazy/stupid/evil/etc and capable of having productive conversations with.

      Take a deep breath. People aren't out to get you. Calm down.

    353. Re:Yes, they should by vandamme · · Score: 1

      62 million people voted against Hillary.

    354. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So Hillary lost fair and square according to the agreed upon rules, even if it did not agree with will of the people of California." FTFY

      Remove the California voters and Trump wins the majority. The whole purpose of the electoral college was to prevent one state with a larger population from the rest from deciding the direction of the entire country.

    355. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I would have thought those statements were infamous by now.

      They might be on certain websites not frequented by me.

      They were by the dirty FBI agents who plotted to overturn the result of a democratic election.

      I missed that story. I heard about some FBI agents who didn't want Trump to win, but I never heard about some actual plot. A plot that was so powerful and nefarious that it apparently failed.

      Anyway, when you were talking about "the deep state," I assumed you were talking about some large shadow government organization that you think exists, who hates all Americans. I didn't realize you were referring to 2 FBI agents in an affair with each other trading texts who had the same reaction to Trump's election as a large chunk of the general population. My mistake. Got it, the deep state is a pair of former FBI agents who were dismayed that Trump won, like a lot of people, but who ultimately did not affect the election in any meaningful way.

      See, it's important to define your terms so that we're all talking about the same things. We aren't on infowars.com, we haven't all read the same glossary and talking points that you have.

      A globalist is one who believes there should be a world government.

      What, a body like the UN or some actual governing body which will assert sovereignty over all other countries, who will apparently all just roll over and give up their sovereignty?

      The USA has the power so it's going to be the one to do get it done.

      The US is going to convince other countries that the US or some body controlled by the US has sovereign authority over them? You really believe this stuff, don't you?

      They'll take our money which should be spent on ourselves and spend it on wars instead.

      Great, let's go for actual tax reform then. What Trump did on taxes is a joke, let's actually reform the system so that we can fill out our taxes on a single card instead of all of the various credits and whatever else that the wealthy use to stay wealthy.

      Imagine us spending that money on nice things instead, like health care and free college.

      I 100% believe that we should, which is why I'm not really finding any candidates to support among the Democratic or Republican parties. I think the best way to real change is to break the stranglehold that the 2 parties currently hold over the presidential debate process and bring in multiple other parties. Each of the major parties could even break in half, pretending like every conservative or every liberal is represented by the Republican or Democratic parties is absurd.

      Globalists aren't American patriots.

      And I don't think they actually exist, either. At least not yet.

      Now, the logical conclusion of the idea of government in general is in fact to have a single planetary government, the same way that the US has a federal government and also state, county, and city governments. But to assume that we're anywhere near being able to achieve that and actually unite the world while wars are being waged all across the world is completely unrealistic. It's an ideal that requires an extreme amount of peace and cooperation, and so far we have not shown ourselves capable of that. We're a series of small tribes fighting against each other and only looking out for ourselves. Occasionally someone comes along who tries to push for peace and cooperation, but it doesn't get very far before our worst instincts of only looking out for #1 take over.

      They don't believe in the idea of nations.

      That's like suggesting that a proponent of a strong federal government doesn't believe that cities should also have a government. If there actually was a global government it would be absolutely necessary to have a series of smaller districts that are each governed locally, all

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    356. Re:Yes, they should by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      or work for the interests of who you are working for.

      The American people?

      I suspect that a collaboration of senior officials got together to write the op-ed. Which woman signed it? Kelly or Sanders?

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    357. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Actually closer to 70 million people voted against Hillary (little-known fact: the people who voted for Trump were not the only people who did not want Hillary to win). I was one of them. Thanks for interjecting with the random non-sequitur though, if any more random thoughts pop into your head make sure to write them down and publish them.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    358. Re:Yes, they should by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Racist bigot scum with delicate snowflake sensibilities who are desperate to make excuses. Who does that remind me of.

      Ah yes, that fits the description for those who rushed to the defense of Sarah Jeong, the 'cancel white people' NYT editorial hire.

      But such is typical now. Instead of self awareness and a commitment to do better to win voters, we received self righteousness and "punch nazis". Instead of reform, a false narrative was pounded relentlessly instead, to where now we see collusion with big tech to put the boot on the neck of free speech.

      It seems there's no reasoning with fanatics, they can only be opposed.

    359. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      They didn't vote for Trump but they didn't vote against him either thus they were willing to accept him as President if he was elected.

      You can't make that conclusion for all of the eligible voters who did not vote. There is a very likely chance that a substantial portion of the electorate disliked and felt like they were not represented by any and every candidate. It is not a correct conclusion to assume that every one of those people was just fine with any particular person getting elected.

      If someone doesn't feel like any candidate represents them, they are less likely to vote. This doesn't mean they're fine with any other arbitrary candidate being elected, it means that they didn't feel like they had a good choice to make. They were unable to determine which was the lesser evil, or they don't buy into that bullshit line at all.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    360. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Sigh...it's frustrating trying to argue with you. You are saying globalism isn't a thing? Seriously? Absolutely it is. Here's Walter Cronkite making a speech about it (with a special guest appearance at the end). Try reading Carroll Quigley. He's the man who Bill Clinton called the most influential figure in his life. His book, "Tragedy and Hope" is widely cited as the globalist bible. Quigley was pro-globalist, but didn't understand why they wanted to stay in the shadows, so he wrote about the topic. He convinced a lot of people with his work, including McCain. How does it protect America to invade Iraq? We all remember McCain was a neo-con who supported the invasion, right? No WMD were ever found. GWB should have stood trial under the Nuremberg laws and have been hanged just like Halder and all the rest.

      "everyone has the same rights that we so famously and proudly claimed for ourselves." - pure globalism right there. That part in Full Metal Jacket where the general says "We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over." - I always thought that pointed out the utter idiocy of expecting people from wildly different cultures to be just like us and want what we want, and the criminality of forcing them to comply with napalm - but apparently you non-ironically agree with this. WTF?

      And your homophobic slur was really not appreciated.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    361. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Show yourself to be a completely uneducated git whose only conception of proper government is totalitarianism.

      First of all, do you know that "deep state" is a phrase completely lifted from a grossly corrupt pro Islamic anti democratic and completely vile Turkish leader? I mean Trump didn't even alter the phrase a little bit to obfuscate just exactly what his intentions are. I guess he correctly gauged the ignorance of his supporters.

      News flash. Professional government workers in many capable and respectable democratic westernized countries are chock full of differing ideas about how things should be done. This is actually VALUED in democracies. You see, the form of government where everyone in government is supposed to be in complete agreement with the "strong man" is called totalitarianism. The USA has fought wars to end totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is the EXACT OPPOSITE of free society. So I personally have no problems whatsoever remarking on the FACT that you just identified yourself as a person who is at the very least a shallow philosopher incapable of grasping concepts that are required to be understood in order to be considered a cogent human being in our current world. Really there is NO EXCUSE for your complete and utter anti American, anti freedom and anti democratic viewpoint regarding the employment of people that take professional pride in having enduring standards that made the freedoms we have possible.

        Get educated. Read a bit of actual informed literature. Look up "deep state" in some other context than Trump and see how it is used to create dictatorship. And above all don't come on so strong when you are clearly a dimwit.

    362. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      McCain wasn't an American patriot. He was a globalist.

      Are you aware that "globalist" is only a dirty word to alt-right Bannonites like yourself? Everyone else reads globalist as "not a rabid nationalist".

      ""Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. l could SMELL the Trump support."

      Some quotes of people looking down on Bernie and Trump supporters doesn't prove anything except that there are people out there who look down on Bernie and Trump supporters. Big surprise. Are you equally shocked by people who hate Hillary supporters? Or Obama supporters? People behave dismissively towards those they disagree with, news at 11.

      "They think they are far more dependent than they actually are. They're arrogant, they believe, and say in the surveys if the American people want one thing, and they think it's wrong, they're going to push something else. There's a massive disconnect, and the deep state is real, and it's a threat to our republic form of government."

      This is the first interesting thing you've said, but here's the main problem: If you want to fix an entrenched corporatist bureaucracy, why would you elect a narcissistic authoritarian moron? It's like you've got cancer, and you don't feel like the doctors are making any progress, so instead you find a rabid doberman to attack you. At least it's not another one of those damn useless doctors.

    363. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we keep our democracy then they will be there long after Trump is gone. What you advocate is called Totalitarianism. Democracy allows for a diverse bureaucracy and even requires one. People of principle are one of the checks and balances of ANY free society. They may not be directly enshrined in the Constitution but they are enshrined in the greater body of traditions and rules of our US government. There are limits to the notion that "to the victor go the spoils." The spoils system run amok is understood to be foul and is blocked by considerable formality in the US government.

      THAT'S WHY TRUMP IS EMPLOYING USEFUL IDIOTS LIKE YOURSELF TO CALL FOR PEOPLE TO LEAVE. Within the formality of governance in the US and the understanding of those who value freedom, Trump has no right to demand personal loyalty of all government workers and indeed such a demand is poison to free society.

      Totalitarianism is bad. Think before you don the brown shirt.

    364. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that there weren't any Democrats trying to contain a blowhard nut in the last administration; but that's because the last blowhard nut paid off his corrupt entourage handsomely.

      Do you really believe this? Like, really? I'm genuinely fascinated.

      In what ways was Obama a blowhard? Or a nut? You can disagree with all sorts of policies, and there are criticisms that I could understand, but for an insult to stick it needs to have at least some shred of truth. Obama was one of the most restrained, sane presidents we've had in decades, almost to a fault - so calling him a "blowhard nut" just makes it sound like you've got some issues with mental wellness yourself.

    365. Re:Yes, they should by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Don't make it out to be something it's not. If you pardon the round numbers, about 63 million people voted for Trump. There were an estimated 250 million eligible voters for 2016, with about 325 million total population. So, the people who voted for Trump make up about 25% of eligible voters, and less than 20% of the total population. He won the election, but don't make it out like he has some sort of super-mandate from the general public

      About 69 million voted for Obama in 2008, which by your logic is only ~20-25% of the total population, but they had no problem acting like they had some kind of mandate, just saying: http://content.time.com/time/p...

    366. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You can disagree with all sorts of policies, and there are criticisms that I could understand, but for an insult to stick it needs to have at least some shred of truth.

      I don't care for insulting people. The "blowhard nut" was NEW22's phrasing that I was simply echoing.

      The way I would put it myself is that Obama was rivaling Bush for being the worst president during my lifetime, creating massive moral hazards with his bailouts, paying off cronies in the energy and medical sectors, pushing through a disastrous healthcare reform package, massively interfering with the economic recovery, interfering with due process and freedom of religion in the US, weakening the US abroad, causing millions of people to leave the workforce, and expanding the abuse of executive power to unprecedented levels. These aren't "policy disagreements", that's his record. The part that is astounding is how oblivious Obama and his fans are to his failures and lack of competence.

      Mind you, I voted for Obama. I didn't think much of him even when he ran, but I thought he was better than McCain.

    367. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the 25th amendment, it is about the cabinet throwing his orange ass out.

      The constitution already gave the hill the power to impeach. The 25th is entirely different.

      Fucking numbnut trumpanzee.

    368. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You're using the guilty by association fallacy. Hitler was a vegetarian, ergo all vegetarians are Nazis. See, I can do it too.

      Globalism means one world government. Are people seriously in favor of this? It's a tyranny, one that would be inescapable. McCain was a globalist, not a patriot. A patriot would want us to continue ruling ourselves, not to try to expand our empire by endless war against countries that have done nothing to us. We can best serve the world by building ourselves as an example to follow, instead of a cruel empire that seeks to dominate by force.

      We have 3 big problems: 1) our trade policy has decimated our manufacturing base, leaving millions of Americans economically stranded; 2) our defense policy has engaged us in conflicts around the globe that in many cases have actually made the United States less secure. and have added considerably to our bloated national debt; and 3) in 1986, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants on the condition that our borders would be secured and illegal immigration would be dramatically curtailed. Since that time, at least 11 million (and likely many more) illegal aliens have entered the United States, effectively suppressing wages for many working Americans, and adding tremendously to the cost of our education and public assistance programs.

      Russia didn't destabilize the Middle East, Russia didn't overthrow Gaddafi, Russia didn't arm and train Jihadists in Syria like al-Nusra, Russia didn't create the refugee crisis. Globalists like McCain did.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    369. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deep state is a term lifted completely from Turkey and specifically Erdogan. While Islamists in Turkey had used the term, it is under Erdogan that the term has been successfully used to rally Islamist support to destroy the governmental checks put in place by Ataturk to curb Islamist rule.

      Trump saw the success of the term as propaganda and has used the term in the same way as Erdogan and for the same personal goals. His use of a term used to strengthen Islamist power without even bothering to alter the language is a profound statement about the lack of awareness and thoughtfulness of Trump supporters.

      Deep state as a propaganda term which is how Trump is using it has absolutely nothing to do with the corruption of others and EVERYTHING to do with Trump's efforts to demand PERSONAL loyalty from government workers. This demand of personal loyalty has NEVER been seen as appropriate in US politics as demonstrated by Madison who formalized in tradition the role of President as a fellow citizen rather than a ruler.

    370. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      The way I would put it myself is that Obama was rivaling Bush for being the worst president during my lifetime, creating massive moral hazards with his bailouts, paying off cronies in the energy and medical sectors, pushing through a disastrous healthcare reform package, massively interfering with the economic recovery, interfering with due process and freedom of religion in the US, weakening the US abroad, causing millions of people to leave the workforce, and expanding the abuse of executive power to unprecedented levels.

      The problem with most of these claims is that the most compelling evidence suggests the exact opposite in many cases. Economists generally suggest that the bailouts were effective. The best evidence suggests that Obamacare did, indeed, improve insured rates and slow down the climb of health care costs. I'm not aware of any interference with freedom of religion, unless you are talking about gay rights? "Weakening the US abroad" is very vague, and I don't see any tangible way in which Obama differed much from either Bush or Clinton. It is not in one president's power to "cause millions of people to leave the workforce", and the trend that I believe you are referring to started long before Obama. In terms of abusing executive power, I agree that the executive branch should be curtailed, but disagree that Obama was doing anything that qualified as "abuse", and in a quantifiable sense his use of the executive order was not particularly remarkable compared to many presidents.

      On due process (I assume you are referring to targeting US citizens with drones, and similar abuses of constitutional rights under the pretext of counterterrorism) I agree. As previously mentioned, I also think the bailouts should have been coupled with trust-busting, but they were better than just allowing the economy to collapse.

      These aren't "policy disagreements", that's his record. The part that is astounding is how oblivious Obama and his fans are to his failures and lack of competence.

      Again, it's not his record unless you can show evidence to support your claims. In many cases, it seems as though you aren't paying attention to the facts and instead are choosing an interpretation that fits your opinions. There are things to criticize about Obama, but the things you are choosing to harp on don't make you seem very informed, or objective.

    371. Re: Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gerrymandering congressional districts does nothing to affect the presidential elections with the possible exceptions of Nebraska and Maine.

      numbnuts

    372. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how it is in Europe exactly. In the US the corporatist flavor that is called liberal is far from elitist. In fact it is much the opposite. So the shouting down of tolerance of viewpoints that would allow debate is performed by people who aren't really the fortunate and select. For the most part the fortunate and select maintain a bit of polite distance from politics as they can see it is a brutal minefield in the US.

      That's why we have Trump. No sane person would really want to subject themselves to the grinder that is politics in the US. But portraying Trump as a victory of numbers of working class in the US is not at all accurate. Many Trump supporters are not working class at all and Trump did not get the most votes. Trump does not really listen to working people and will set back the common interest and rational debate for decades in the US. Many of the basic notions behind Trump policies are not new and were mainstream under Bill Clinton and even Obama. It is just that Hillary's supporters and some of the new "left:" corporatist stuff is truly radical. Stuff like borders are meaningless criminal constructs and that we owe reparations to immigrants for our terrible treatment of them. I see this as Soros creating chaos so he can profit just as he has undeniably done before.

        But seeing Trump as a similar thing as Europe does not seem correct to me. Trump will go away and we will be left with yet another impossible cultural situation where any attempt at considering other viewpoints in order to reach a rational consensus will just not happen. Britain will actually get their independence from the EU which is actually not looking quite as nuts as when the vote happened. The differing values and interests of Greece, Italy, France and Germany are plain to see and Greece may now feel it is arguable that the benefits of economic unity outweigh the drawbacks.

    373. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Again, it's not his record unless you can show evidence to support your claims. In many cases, it seems as though you aren't paying attention to the facts and instead are choosing an interpretation that fits your opinions.

      You mean "facts" and "evidence" like "economists generally suggest" and "they were better than"? As a long-term former Democrat, former progressive, and Obama voter, you can bet that I have considered the positions you take and actually used to hold them myself.

      There are things to criticize about Obama, but the things you are choosing to harp on don't make you seem very informed, or objective.

      I gave you my assessment of Obama's presidency. I didn't invite you to debate it and, given your biases, consider that pointless. I encourage you to do the necessary reading on your own why people reach the conclusions that I and many other reached about Obama and his policies.

    374. Re:Yes, they should by jwdb · · Score: 1

      I don't care if they're violating the rules to counter another rule violator, *anyone* violating the rules has no place in the government. The whole point of a rules-based order is to have most people stick to it, and those that don't held accountable by it, such that people living under the rules can trust that they'll be enforced fairly and evenly. If the people at the top all start breaking the rules, the whole thing collapses regardless of how well-intentioned they were.

      See for reference the people who will now point to this as conclusive proof that there's a deep state, and that therefore the US govt is illegitimate, needs to be scrapped, etc... That could be more damaging to the US in the long term than anything Trump's done so far.

    375. Re:Yes, they should by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      CNN isn't a credible source, I'll grant that. They could just be lying.

      But the RNC establishment hates Trump and is afraid of the dirt dump being triggered.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    376. Re: Yes, they should by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Funny how after that op-ed a lot of major newscasters suddenly decided it was ok to imply the president's a child.

    377. Re:Yes, they should by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      I remember when Gowdy said "facts don't matter in DC" and then announced he won't run again while looking like he hadn't slept for a week. I had surmised that mutually assured destruction had been postponed.

      But with Trump threatening Sessions again, and possibly declassifying FISA documents so we can see how the sausage is being made, that the stakes of the game has changed.

      Still seems like a risky stunt that seems much less likely than just poor standards of ethics in journalism at the NYT. They did just hire someone who advocates genocide to their editorial board, after all.

    378. Re:Yes, they should by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the fact check. I voted for Trump because I live in a Hillary state, everybody knew he couldn't possibly win anyhow, and he wasn't Hillary.

      Nobody pays attention when I talk, so I have to express myself on Slashdot.

    379. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > CNN isn't a credible source, I'll grant that.

      Of course not, because news agencies are not sources.

      Do you understand what a 'source' is?

    380. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually closer to 70 million people voted against Hillary (little-known fact: the people who voted for Trump were not the only people who did not want Hillary to win).

      You're off by an order of magnitude.

      Total votes cast: 136,669,276
      Trump: 62,984,828
      Clinton: 65,853,514
      Neither: 136,669,276 - 62,984,828 - 65,853,514 = 7,830,934

    381. Re:Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, my mistake (same AC here).

      I misread your post to mean 70 million NON-Trump voters voted against Hillary.

    382. Re:Yes, they should by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      What I find absurd is if the anonymous person likes the Republican agenda but dislikes Trump's idiocy and closeness to the red button, what the hell is wrong with Pence? IF the president cannot be trusted, put in the next dud, I mean, dude.

    383. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      In many cases, it seems as though you aren't paying attention to the facts and instead are choosing an interpretation that fits your opinions.

      You mean "facts" and "evidence" like "economists generally suggest" and "they were better than"?

      You make a common mistake, which is to assume that because a statement is qualified, hedged, or relative, that it is less reliable than a proclamation of certitude. The exact opposite is the case. Liars and salesman deal in absolutes, which isn't appropriate for any moderately complex topic. Almost nothing can be proved in economics, politics, or any other soft science. Accordingly, people who care first and foremost about the truth always make the limits of their knowledge abundantly clear. The best we can do is look at the evidence and make an educated assessment - an educated assessment of Obama's administration shows that he didn't do anything revolutionary, largely followed the path set by Clinton and Bush before him, made a few mistakes, and had a few modest achievements.

      I gave you my assessment of Obama's presidency. I didn't invite you to debate it and, given your biases, consider that pointless. I encourage you to do the necessary reading on your own why people reach the conclusions that I and many other reached about Obama and his policies.

      You posted your opinions on slashdot - if you don't want people to disagree with you, don't post. Also, "do necessary reading" is the same thing as saying "I'm not going to support my positions myself". It's a non-argument. You are suggesting that the answers are out there somewhere, but you aren't going to give them. I can just as easily do the same: go educate yourself, surely once you are enlightened you will realize the superiority of my position.

      If you won't accept that argument from me, you shouldn't expect me to accept it from you.

    384. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      You're using the guilty by association fallacy.

      I am? I can call Trump an idiot narcissistic authoritarian moron based purely on the contents of his twitter feed and videos of his campaign rallies. Anybody who voted for him is, by definition, a supporter of idiotic narcissistic authoritarians. No guilt by association there. Or are you talking about the Bannonite thing? Once again, you are making the same arguments as Bannon, so you aren't guilty by association, but guilty of repeating his moronic nationalist tripe.

      Globalism means one world government. Are people seriously in favor of this? It's a tyranny, one that would be inescapable. McCain was a globalist, not a patriot. A patriot would want us to continue ruling ourselves, not to try to expand our empire by endless war against countries that have done nothing to us. We can best serve the world by building ourselves as an example to follow, instead of a cruel empire that seeks to dominate by force.

      First off, this is a strawman - McCain and the others who you would call "globalists" don't want this New World Order world government garbage that you imagine. You are manufacturing a pretend world to make it sound like you have a point.

      Secondly, you are redefining words to make it sound as though you have something new to say. You don't. What you call "globalism" is just plain old imperialism, which has already been discussed ad nauseum by the postmodernists and used as an excuse to condemn any kind of constructive sociopolitical theory. Yes, imperialism is bad. No, the alt-right and Trumpism are not doing anything to address it. They are just selling white nationalism by another name.

      1) our trade policy has decimated our manufacturing base, leaving millions of Americans economically
      stranded

      And you vote for an authoritarian billionaire to fix the problem? If you want a healthy economy for working people, we already know what works. Return to the good ol' days of American manufacturing dominance, when unions were thriving and the top marginal tax rate 90%. You'll notice worldwide that healthier, happier societies have lower inequality - the same is true of our own history. If you want to help the working man, help the goddamn working man, don't elect a billionaire idiot and claim you are doing something good for normal people.

      2) our defense policy has engaged us in conflicts around the globe that in many cases have actually made the United States less secure.

      Ok, so don't vote for war hawks. That generally means voting NO for republicans - Democrats have less warmongering generally, but a libertarian or other third-party would be better yet. Again, voting for an authoritarian blowhard is the WORST POSSIBLE approach if you want less international war.

      and have added considerably to our bloated national debt;

      If you give a single shit about the national debt, you should vote against Trump and republicans the first chance you get - did you notice the massive tax cut, and what that's doing to our deficit?

      at least 11 million (and likely many more) illegal aliens have entered the United States, effectively suppressing wages for many working Americans, and adding tremendously to the cost of our education and public assistance programs.

      Citation needed. There's no indication whatsoever that illegal aliens have suppressed wages - Americans aren't willing to work fields for any price. Immigrants, on the whole, greatly improve the health of the economy, pay taxes, and make the country stronger - there are lots of countries out there with flat or negative population growth, and it's not an enviable position to be in.

      Russia didn't destabilize the Middle East, Russia didn't overthrow Gaddafi, Russia didn't arm and train Jihadists in Syria like al-Nusra, Russia didn't create the refugee crisis.

    385. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You make a common mistake, which is to assume that because a statement is qualified, hedged, or relative, that it is less reliable than a proclamation of certitude.

      The problem with your statement is not that it is cautious, it is that you confuse an appeal to authority (and an unnamed, fictitious authority at that) with facts and evidence.

      You posted your opinions on slashdot - if you don't want people to disagree with you, don't post

      What makes you think I don't want people to disagree with me? What I would prefer, however, is that you actually bring some facts and insights to the table, something you sadly seem incapable of.

    386. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      Here you go, straight facts:

      https://internationalbanker.co...

      Objectively speaking, considering 14 different measures, Obama had a more positive impact on the economy than all but one of the last 6 administrations. The economic health of the country, as measured by percentage improvement in wage growth, S&P 500 value, debt to income ratio, value of the dollar, and several additional metrics, places Obama second only to Clinton in terms of positive impact on the economy.

      Now, are you going to provide some facts to support your own claims of economic disaster? The original contention was yours - you should back it up.

    387. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Objectively speaking, considering 14 different measures, Obama had a more positive impact on the economy than all but one of the last 6 administrations

      Given the depth of the recession, that would have been true of any president, short of starting WWIII. And the very article you quote says "Furthermore, while shortfalls do exist on the Obama end-of-term report card, his performance holds up more than adequately against other US leaders of recent history."

      What Obama should be measured by is (1) how his performance compares to his own economic predictions and promises, and (2) how the recovery compares to historical recoveries. Obama performed dismally bad by his own predictions; his economic policies failed to achieve his stated objectives. And the recovery was dismally slow (CNN, Forbes).

      Obama's poor economic performance isn't surprising either: his stimulus package, fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and welfare policy worked as people expected it to and the way they have always done: they slowed economic recovery, employment, and growth.

    388. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      Objectively speaking, considering 14 different measures, Obama had a more positive impact on the economy than all but one of the last 6 administrations

      Given the depth of the recession, that would have been true of any president, short of starting WWIII.

      The recession was definitely NOT rock bottom. It could have continued to get worse. In some respects, it was more severe initially than the great depression, and if mismanaged it could have become one. While it is easy to look better than Bush, a president has it very much in his power to make a recession worse, or to mitigate it.

      And the very article you quote says "Furthermore, while shortfalls do exist on the Obama end-of-term report card, his performance holds up more than adequately against other US leaders of recent history."

      In what way does that quote refute my contention? The link supports my position - that Obama was decent, but not spectacular economically. There are several steps that Obama could have taken (or not) that would have dramatically changed the course of the recession. You are claiming that Obama was an economic trainwreck - that quote says otherwise.

      What Obama should be measured by is (1) how his performance compares to his own economic predictions and promises, and (2) how the recovery compares to historical recoveries.

      You're setting arbitrary goalposts here to declare his failure. Obama should not be expected to predict the future. He did better than expected on some predictions, worse than expected on others. As well, you are choosing to focus only on GDP, which is a limited picture. If you look at wage growth, jobs added, debt-to-income, and all the other metrics in my original link, you'll see that Obama was not just adequate, but better than most recent presidents. You'll also note that he IS being compared to historical recoveries there - Reagan and Clinton both presided over their own recoveries, and that link makes a direct comparison to them.

      Obama's poor economic performance isn't surprising either: his stimulus package, fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and welfare policy worked as people expected it to and the way they have always done: they slowed economic recovery, employment, and growth.

      Citation needed. This is just a baseless claim. "People" in this case were obstructionist Republicans, who predicted everything from hyperinflation to a full-on depression. Your Forbes "evidence" is a shamelessly partisan opinion piece. Obama's recovery is one of the longest in history, and healthier than comparable recoveries in many respects. I'll take slow-and-steady growth over boom-bust cycles any time.

    389. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      You are saying globalism isn't a thing?

      Not in the sense you think.

      I do think there are people who would like to see the planet united under a single government.

      I do not think that people are currently actively trying to work toward that specific goal by setting up such a world government and insisting that all other nations become subservient to it. As proof of this statement, I'll point out that there is not such a world government, and no one is insisting that all other nations become subservient to it. This seems pretty obvious. Maybe you think there are people trying to push what they believe are US interests, but somehow they're actually trying to make the US that world government, but I don't think that's the case at all. There are certainly people trying to make the US the world's police, but that's not globalism. That's just US-centric foreign policy, where we try to always achieve our own goals regardless of what anyone else wants. That's not what globalism is, that's nationalism.

      How does it protect America to invade Iraq?

      It protected American interests to invade Iraq in the 90s, because oil supplies were threatened. In 2003, it served Bush's interests because Saddam tried to kill his dad once. I will refrain from offering my opinion of either war.

      We all remember McCain was a neo-con who supported the invasion, right?

      Yep. This one fault doesn't make him an awful guy. I don't know what would have happened if he had beaten Bush in the primary in 2000, but it's probably fair to say that there would have been more or bigger wars. Again, this doesn't automatically make him a terrible person or not a patriot, his ideas of protecting the country are just different than mine.

      GWB should have stood trial under the Nuremberg laws and have been hanged just like Halder and all the rest.

      That's going a little far. If Annan really believed the war was illegal, like he said, then he should have done something about it. I doubt it would have required anyone to be hanged. Jail time probably would have sent the message loud and clear.

      "everyone has the same rights that we so famously and proudly claimed for ourselves." - pure globalism right there.

      I'd like you to expand on that. Do you believe that we actually do have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Because a bunch of people around 1776 thought that it was so obvious that every person had these rights that they didn't even need to provide any evidence. So, what do you think? Do we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If we do, then does everyone else? If no to any of those questions, why? Do you think that innate rights even exist? What truths do you hold to be self-evident?

      but apparently you non-ironically agree with this. WTF?

      Ironically or not, no I don't agree. I do believe that everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness though, that these things are not exclusive to Americans.

      And your homophobic slur was really not appreciated.

      I had to re-read what I wrote three times to find what you're referring to. Are you referring to "cocksucker?" Do you think that this is both a "homophobic slur", and that I meant it as such? You're obviously not afraid to assume I mean or believe things that I don't, but if the takeaway for you from that line was something relating to anyone's sexuality then I think you really missed the point, bud.

      Here, let me help you with some definitions for that word:

      a contemptible person (used as a generalized term of abuse).

      A mean or despicable person.

      insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous

      And my personal favorite:

      General all-purpose all-american insult used to describe anyone except the person who actually sucks your cock.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    390. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how it's "by my logic" that 69 is 22.6% of 304, I mean that just seems like basic math, but well done on extending what I said. Yes, virtually no president has a mandate, despite what they want to claim. Again, well done.

      Next let's talk about what candidates say during a campaign versus what they actual do after being elected. My own personal theory is that they do not hold up all of their promises. It's a shocking theory, I know.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    391. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You're setting arbitrary goalposts here to declare his failure. Obama should not be expected to predict the future.

      The fact is that Obama did predict the future and used his predictions to justify his election and his economic policies. Obama predicted one outcome that was going to happen with doing nothing and another outcome for his economic plan. What happened? The country did worse with his plan than his own predictions for doing nothing. So, Obama acted irresponsibly by predicting the economic future, he acted irresponsibly by using his predictions to justify massive spending on cronies, and then it all blew up in his face.

      Obama's recovery is one of the longest in history,

      Yes, and hence one of the slowest, i.e., one of the weakest and worst.

      Citation needed. This is just a baseless claim. "People" in this case were obstructionist Republicans

      There are basically two different views of recessions, the Keynesian one and the Austrian one. Obama's economic policies were based on the Keynesian view. If the Keynesian view were correct, the economy should have responded as he predicted. But, in fact, the economy responded like Austrian models predicted.

      I'll take slow-and-steady growth over boom-bust cycles any time.

      But what Keynesians give you is slow growth and boom-bust cycles because the boom-bust cycles are caused by monetary policy and government spending in the first place.

    392. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      What happened? The country did worse with his plan than his own predictions for doing nothing.

      You are making the claim that Obama is bad at predicting, and then using that admittedly bad prediction as your measure of his success. Your argument is self-refuting. If the prediction is bad, it's illogical of you to use it as a measure of his economic success. What's more, a bad predictor could be good at the economy, and a good predictor could be bad at the economy. Nothing about your argument makes sense. The only way we can really understand Obama's impact, short of traveling in time and re-running the experiment, is by comparing his presidency to others. By that measure, he's done quite well.

      Obama's recovery is one of the longest in history,

      Yes, and hence one of the slowest, i.e., one of the weakest and worst.

      No, based on the metrics I provided. Repeating this same thing over and over doesn't make it true, and doesn't refute the facts.

      If the Keynesian view were correct, the economy should have responded as he predicted. But, in fact, the economy responded like Austrian models predicted.

      Nonsense. Austrian economists were predicting hyperinflation left and right, or maybe a deflationary default. Where is it? http://socialdemocracy21stcent...

      Austrian economics gives you exactly what you'd expect for a philosophy that specifically rejects mathematical rigor and empiricism: total garbage, handwaving, magical thinking. And predictive power roughly on par with astrology.

      But what Keynesians give you is slow growth and boom-bust cycles because the boom-bust cycles are caused by monetary policy and government spending in the first place.

      Totally unsupported claim. What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad. This lessens the amplitude of the boom-bust cycle. Austrians just say "government is bad" and when you ask them to prove it, they stick their fingers in their ears. Austrians suck at math, modeling, and basically all the modern tools of science, because fundamentally, they don't believe in them. And really, they have to be that way, because if they used empirical methods, those methods would quickly reveal that their theory has no basis in fact.

    393. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You are making the claim that Obama is bad at predicting

      Not at all: I think Obama's prediction for what was going to happen without the Keynesian stimulus was about on target. His error was in predicting the effect of the Keynesian stimulus.

      No, based on the metrics I provided. Repeating this same thing over and over doesn't make it true, and doesn't refute the facts.

      The fact is as you stated: this was one of "the longest recoveries"; that logically makes it one of the slowest.

      What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad.

      Pay off debts? Are you delusional? When has the US government ever paid off debt?

      Austrians suck at math, modeling, and basically all the modern tools of science, because fundamentally, they don't believe in them.

      Correct. What you are leaving out is that Keynesians also suck at math, modeling, and basically all the modern tools of science, but unlike Austrians, they are so dumb and partisan that they don't even realize it.

    394. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      The fact is as you stated: this was one of "the longest recoveries"; that logically makes it one of the slowest.

      I think you misunderstand what a recovery is. From the wiki: An economic recovery is the phase of the business cycle following a recession, during which an economy regains and exceeds peak employment and output levels achieved prior to downturn.

      The longest economic recovery in recorded U.S. history was in the 1990's, which was simultaneously the best economic growth since the 60's. A long recovery is a GOOD thing.

      What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad.

      Pay off debts? Are you delusional? When has the US government ever paid off debt?

      Oh, I don't know, through most of its history until the advent of delusional Reaganomics?

      Austrians suck at math, modeling, and basically all the modern tools of science, because fundamentally, they don't believe in them.

      Correct.

      Read the link I posted earlier. Austrians argue that no experiment or empirical evidence could falsify their theory. In this context, that's the same as saying it's a bunch of made-up nonsense that has no bearing on reality. It's pseudointellectual tripe masquerading as economics, and the nonexistent predictive power of the Austrian theory makes that clear. Keynesians actually use math, modeling, and some semblance of scientific rigor in their studies, instead of rejecting empiricism on principle. There's no comparison between the two.

    395. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know, through most of its history until the advent of delusional Reaganomics?

      Your graph doesn't show any debts being paid off; you're looking at the wrong graph.

      Austrians argue that no experiment or empirical evidence could falsify their theory

      Austrians don't just say that their theory is unfalsifiable, they say that all economic theories are unfalsifiable because economics is not a science. And they are correct. Keynesianism in particular is a pseudoscience because it uses the trappings of science (math, modeling, scientific language, empirical data), but fails to use the scientific method.

      Nor is that surprising. Keynes was a very smart, arrogant man, but he had no scientific training, understanding, or accomplishments (ditto for Krugman). And Keynes was a proud leader in another pseudoscientific field, namely eugenics.

    396. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      Your graph doesn't show any debts being paid off; you're looking at the wrong graph.

      What the hell are you talking about? It shows debts being paid off after the War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, Great Depression, and WWII. Only in the 80's did we start to charge up debt without paying it down.

      Austrians don't just say that their theory is unfalsifiable, they say that all economic theories are unfalsifiable because economics is not a science.

      At the end of the day, something like economics is only useful to the extent that it has predictive power. If it makes predictions, it is falsifiable. Keynesians use state-of-the-art mathematical modeling to make predictions. And some of them are damn good at it. So you can call economics "unfalsifiable" all day long, if you want. But Austrian economists continue to put hyperinflation predictions out there that are easily proved wrong when said hyperinflation fails to materialize over and over. Either economics can make useful predictions, in which case it makes claims that are falsifiable, or it doesn't make useful predictions, in which case it's completely pointless.

      It's puzzling to me why anyone would want to listen to economists who hide behind such circular philosophical smokescreens.

    397. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It shows debts being paid off after the War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, Great Depression, and WWII. Only in the 80's did we start to charge up debt without paying it down.

      I'm sorry, I thought you could figure it out. The graph shows debt as percentage of GDP; the graph slopes downward not because any debt was paid off but because of economic growth.

      Keynesians use state-of-the-art mathematical modeling to make predictions. And some of them are damn good at it

      What makes you think that Jim O'Sullivan is a Keynesian? Plenty of people who reject Keynesianism build mathematical economic models (I do). Furthermore, O'Sullivan may simply have been lucky.

      But Austrian economists continue to put hyperinflation predictions out there that are easily proved wrong when said hyperinflation fails to materialize over and over.

      You obviously are only familiar with a caricature of Austrian economics.

      At the end of the day, something like economics is only useful to the extent that it has predictive power

      Austrians don't dispute that economics is useful, they dispute that it is a science.

    398. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it was just an oversight, but if you could spell out your position on this I would appreciate the clarity:

      I'd like you to expand on that. Do you believe that we actually do have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Because a bunch of people around 1776 thought that it was so obvious that every person had these rights that they didn't even need to provide any evidence. So, what do you think? Do we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If we do, then does everyone else? If no to any of those questions, why? Do you think that innate rights even exist? What truths do you hold to be self-evident?

      And, no, just saying "that's pure globalism" doesn't cut it, you need to finish your thought.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    399. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      The graph shows debt as percentage of GDP; the graph slopes downward not because any debt was paid off but because of economic growth.

      We could go on a tangent about whether GDP percentage or absolute dollars is a better measure, but no need. You are still wrong: https://www.brillig.com/debt_c...

      What makes you think that Jim O'Sullivan is a Keynesian? Plenty of people who reject Keynesianism build mathematical economic models (I do).

      Anybody who uses mathematical modeling is not an Austrian economist, because Austrian economists eschew quantitative methods on philosophical grounds.

      Furthermore, O'Sullivan may simply have been lucky.

      MarketWatch explained that the chances of O'Sullivan being this successful is less than 1 in 37 million. He's been the best economic forecaster, far and away, for several years running. He's had to get lucky hundreds of times a year (that's how often he beats the consensus estimate) and do it many years in a row. That's not luck - he's using state-of-the-art quantitative analysis, which is explicitly rejected by the Austrian school.

      But Austrian economists continue to put hyperinflation predictions out there that are easily proved wrong when said hyperinflation fails to materialize over and over.

      You obviously are only familiar with a caricature of Austrian economics.

      No, I'm citing the Austrian economists that claimed Obama's economic policies would cause hyperinflation. This was a common claim. If you think those are unrepresentative, show me an economist who is making good predictions without using mathematical models, like a good Austrian.

      At the end of the day, something like economics is only useful to the extent that it has predictive power

      Austrians don't dispute that economics is useful, they dispute that it is a science.

      I never said that economics is a science - you are just distracting from the main point. Since you didn't respond to it earlier, I'll repeat my basic contention:

      Either economics can make useful predictions, in which case it makes claims that are falsifiable, or it doesn't make useful predictions, in which case it's completely pointless.

      So which is it?

    400. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      We could go on a tangent about whether GDP percentage or absolute dollars is a better measure, but no need.

      It's not a question of which is a "better measure": no debt was paid back.

      You are still wrong: https://www.brillig.com/debt_c... [brillig.com]

      Again, no debt was repaid.

      Either economics...

      Since you can't even figure out what "repaying debt" means, I think any further discussion with you about financial forecasting, Keynesianism, or Austrian economics is pointless.

    401. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      Again, no debt was repaid.

      Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. You're just putting your fingers in your ears and pretending you aren't flat-out wrong.

      I think any further discussion with you about financial forecasting, Keynesianism, or Austrian economics is pointless.

      I agree. Your complete disregard for empirical evidence makes it clear that your ideas are tenuously influenced by reality, at best... I'd be happy to continue a conversation with you when you learn to incorporate basic facts into your reasoning.

    402. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. You're just putting your fingers in your ears and pretending you aren't flat-out wrong.

      Absolutely true: you look at the graph and you still deny what's right in front of your eyes.

    403. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      " If we do, then does everyone else?"

      That's their job to do. Our job is to protect our own people. It is not to go forth and play World Bully. The world hates our guts, and rightly so. We regularly attack countries that are not at war with us.

      You hate neo-cons, right? The ones that led us into Iraq? Neo-cons are globalists. I highly advise reading Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, which is basically the bible for globalism.

      The concept is pure globalism. But the over-riding point is that Globalism, Cosmopolitanism, Internationalism, whatever you want to call it, has no effective constitution, it has no place for popular representation, it has no constituency beyond humanity at large and has no culture beyond enriching its nomenklatura of experts and commissars and their associated appratachiks. It is simply an oligarchy with totalitarian impulses. Clearly, globalism looks like nothing so much as Stalinism with a Smiley Face that turns vicious when opposed. Here's a letter written by a patriotic American soldier who died for a lie. It's titled, "the true face of globalism".

      "I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

      I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all-the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

      I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans-my fellow veterans-whose future you stole.

      Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

      I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go t

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    404. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      Your question:

      When has the US government ever paid off debt?

      The answer: Many times in its history. Indisputable fact. Your opinion is in absolute contradiction to reality.

    405. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      What we are talking about is your claim:

      What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad.

      This is clearly a bald faced lie, as a simple look at the national debt over time shows you. And to compound your lie, you are trying to pretend that looking at debt as percentage of GDP or in constant dollars amounts to "paying off debt".

      Thanks for illustrating again what a bunch of dishonest crooks Keynesians and progressives are. You almost rise to the level of idiocy and dishonesty of Krugman. Almost.

    406. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you think that this sentence:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      Is not a declaration of universal human rights, but instead serves some sort of oligarchy political agenda. That, no, people do not have those rights. You haven't said anything that would imply otherwise. You also seem to think that anyone who believes that sentence cannot be a patriot, and is purely and only a globalist, and nothing else, with no love for their country.

      Your beliefs don't have any gray area, they're a set of extremes. People are either patriots who love their country, or they are globalists trying to enslave the world. Needless to say, there's not much of a point in trying to debate with an extremist.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    407. Re:Yes, they should by werepants · · Score: 1

      What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad.

      This is clearly a bald faced lie, as a simple look at the national debt over time shows you.

      No it isn't. Your own link shows the fact that you are trying to deny - it shows a decrease in debt (both inflation-adjusted and unadjusted) after WWII. If it went back farther, it would also show debt being paid down earlier in the nation's history.

      All you've really done through this whole argument is play semantic games to try to redefine the idea of debt being paid down, because you made a factually untrue statement several comments ago. Instead of admitting the fault and moving on, you have doubled down on ignorance.

      If you want even more unequivocal evidence that the U.S. economy was once managed by responsible adults: When the US Paid Off the Entire National Debt

      Just admit it. You were wrong.

    408. Re:Yes, they should by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. Your own link shows the fact that you are trying to deny - it shows a decrease in debt (both inflation-adjusted and unadjusted) after WWII. If it went back farther, it would also show debt being paid down earlier in the nation's history.

      A blip paying back war bonds after WWII does not amount to "What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad".

      If you want even more unequivocal evidence that the U.S. economy was once managed by responsible adults: When the US Paid Off the Entire National Debt

      Indeed it was. As your article shows, that was when the people managing the US economy believed in gold-backed currency and borrowed money to fight wars. That's responsible. I'm for it.

      What Keynesians advocate is using monetary policy, fiat money, and borrowing to stimulate the economy and then paying it back when the economy does well (except that they know full well that the political will to do that never exists). That's irresponsible. I'm against it.

    409. Re:Yes, they should by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You're not making arguments, you're attacking me. This is the ad hominem fallacy. Moreover you're putting words in my mouth, like Cathy Newman. "So you're saying..." is a joke now, you know that right?

      So, we need to go forth into the world, conquer nations that never attacked us, so we can impose our values on them? You're making the same argument as McCain. Are you aware that you're a neo-con? Because these are neo-con arguments. Remember the men who led us to invade Iraq? Now tell me about rule of law and the necessity of obeying an international order. Make me laugh, I could use a laugh today. The so-called "Pax Americana" has brought only endless wars, leading to countless innocents murdered by Americans, failed states, religious fundamentalism, and nuclear proliferation, as states decide that they will not be the next Iraq. When all you bring is death, the world will mark you as a threat, not a leader.

      The globalist establishment is now beginning to discover what many voters intuitively believed back in the 1990s. Building a globalist world order is much more expensive and difficult than it appeared in a quarter-century ago, when America was unopposed. Further, Washington's foreign-policy establishment is neither as wise nor as competent as it believes itself to be.

      Without a proper enemy, be it Russia, China or North Korea, our military industrial complex would collapse, tens of thousands of oligarchs and their globalist allies would lose millions of dollars, the focus of the nation would be on our own weaknesses instead of on external threats, and so on and so forth. You can see how this is a totally unacceptable situation and the forces that oppose patriots must never allow this to happen.

      Without "regime change" and "building democracy" as a foreign policy people all over the world would stop fighting each other and would start building their nations peacefully which would put an unacceptable strain on the supplies of raw materials and energy. Unacceptable from a strategic point of view.

      We Americans have their own lives, hopes, and dreams, but we are sacrificed in a maelstrom of violence, fighting wars we will never benefit from, and being thrown upon the Altar of Political Correctness for all time as kindling wood for the fire that will never heat us.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    410. Re:Yes, they should by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      You're not making arguments, you're attacking me.

      I've made several statements of substance, many of which you have avoided.

      Moreover you're putting words in my mouth

      You too, bud.

      So, we need to go forth into the world, conquer nations that never attacked us, so we can impose our values on them?

      See? You just did it, right there, literally the sentence after trying to call me out for the same.

      No, that is not what I am arguing for, that is not my point, and it reinforces my contention that you see the world as a set of extremes with no gray area in between.

      Are you aware that you're a neo-con?

      If only you could actually see me, you would appreciate the hilariousness of that statement.

      Because these are neo-con arguments.

      Which I am not making, but that's the lens through which you view the world.

      Now tell me about rule of law and the necessity of obeying an international order.

      Because of the things I've said, and asserted universal human rights, you think I don't care about rule of law? Bush should have been prosecuted, Annan asserted that the war was illegal. Rule of law says he should have stood trial.

      The so-called "Pax Americana" has brought only endless wars, leading to countless innocents murdered by Americans, failed states, religious fundamentalism, and nuclear proliferation, as states decide that they will not be the next Iraq.

      And, what, are you asserting that I believe in "Pax Americana" also? What's the purpose of that sentence? Why even bring it up?

      You can see how this is a totally unacceptable situation and the forces that oppose patriots must never allow this to happen.

      There's more of your extremes, either someone wants to see world peace under a united world government, or they love their home country.

      Without "regime change" and "building democracy" as a foreign policy people all over the world would stop fighting each other and would start building their nations peacefully

      Ha, just like humans have done throughout history, right? Just peacefully co-existing. You follow a different religion? Cool, let's build peaceful nations. All of that shit that has been happening in Syria over the last seven or eight years? Totally the fault of every other country except Syria, which is a bastion of peace and happiness led by a real great guy who only wants the best for everyone who lives in his country, who are all 100% completely happy with his rule. The Rohingyas, Uighurs, and Tutsis also totally agree with your statements.

      And to think, all of this shitstorm just because I suggested that McCain loved his country. You can't even let a statement like that rest and you think that people can just get along if the American government gets out of the way. You refuse to accept that an obvious patriot could possibly love his country, and you think that people with directly opposing religious beliefs would just hug it out if it weren't for us.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  3. I bow down to our new anonymous overlordship :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Iâ(TM)m a senior official in the whitehouse now, lo and behold the new found authority and authorship of the beguiled, holierthantho, Lord and Almighty, Anonymous :)

  4. Deep State Coup is never good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think if Sanders had been elected and tried to do something radical like end our foreign wars or implement national healthcare some deep state mole wouldn't do the same shit to him? This is anti-democratic and quite frankly treasonous. Even more insulting is the guy is proud of the big tax cuts for the rich, but doing his best to fight against any policies that might actually benefit the people who voted for Trump. Troubling to say the least.

    1. Re: Deep State Coup is never good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah blah blah. Trump Eunuch

    2. Re:Deep State Coup is never good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I guess Trump shouldn't have hired "deep state operatives" then...

    3. Re: Deep State Coup is never good! by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      Blah blah blah. Useful Leftist idiot.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re: Deep State Coup is never good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your a member of either the democrat or Republican Party, you are in the deep state.

    5. Re: Deep State Coup is never good! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      True that. Of course, if you identify as one or the other, for convenience, you may not be a member of the Deep State. It's your acceptance of and support for the Deep State that determines your membership...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  5. Duty to Country? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you think the President is unable to carry out his responsibilities, you have a duty to bring about impeachment and/or invoke the 25th Amendment.

    Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    1. Re:Duty to Country? by careysb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. So who does this person confide in? Republican controlled congress or senate?

    2. Re:Duty to Country? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think the President is unable to carry out his responsibilities, you have a duty to bring about impeachment and/or invoke the 25th Amendment.

      They may very well have initially (and naively) expected Congress by this point to have impeached him rather than sidling up to the trough and quietly joining along in the money grab. But since Congress hasn’t demonstrated the presence of even a nascent backbone, these insiders might figure this is the only way left they can truly serve the country... which is what they’re sworn to do, regardless of Trump’s ideas about personal loyalty.

      I mean, just look - Trump speculated this might count as treason, for Pete’s sake. He really thinks it’s all about him, not the country.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Please provide a list of high crimes and misdemeanors that add up to impeachable offenses.

      Beating Hillary in the election, not acting Presidential, insulting people, cheating on his wife and the other petty bullshit he is guilty of do not add up to anything.

      Congress not impeaching him because -you- and other marxists dont like him doesnt mean they have failed their duties. Get over your big bad self.

    4. Re:Duty to Country? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think the President is unable to carry out his responsibilities, you have a duty to bring about impeachment and/or invoke the 25th Amendment.

      What do you do when congress is loaded with cowards who are far more interested in keeping power than performing their sworn duties?

      Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.

      Unprofessional and cowardly are arguable but it's definitely not unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution does not demand loyalty to anyone, not even the President. In fact, the U.S. Constitution is all about the limitations put upon government. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution exists expressly so that we can speak out in opposition of those in power.

      I suggest you read the U.S. Constitution, it's pretty great, not perfect but still quite good.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.

      I'm sure this kind of thing happens every day in governments around the world, that staffers & appointees undermine what their bosses are trying to do (regardless of whether or not their boss is a nincompoop).

      Heck, I've done that at the office, and I'm an ordinary employee at an ordinary company.

    6. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really a good point:

      > Please provide a list of high crimes and misdemeanors that add up to impeachable offenses.

      Being an amoral disgusting person is NOT ILLEGAL.

      His own apologists harp on this over and over, and yet some how, so many of Trump's opponents still miss this point.

      Just because Trump does nasty disgusting things, and gets in bed with porn stars and dictators and so forth, is NOT GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

      In fact, most of the disgusting things he does are NOT EVEN ILLEGAL. And even the illegal ones, may not be provably illegal. And even if they are provably illegal, which is unknown, that does NOT MAKE THEM GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

      His own apologists are trying to make this clear, so I don't understand why his opponents cannot grasp this.

      HIs supporters want him regardless of how disgusting and unAmerican and amoral he is; he may be a vile person, but he says things they like to hear, so he is *their* vile person.

    7. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even the illegal ones, may not be provably illegal. And even if they are provably illegal, which is unknown,

      Heh?

    8. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Being an amoral disgusting person is NOT ILLEGAL.

      Seriously are you a time traveler who just landed in 2018? Have you not been paying attention to anything.. at... all?

      Disclosing highly classified national security information by giving away
      locations of US strategic subs.

      Publically soliciting illicit acts and illicit assistance from unfriendly foreign governments and having those requests immediately answered with action within hours... also illegal. Both the solicitation of illicit action (hacking) and requesting election assistance from foreign governments.

      Obstruction of justice ("because Russia") and pattern of firing and attempting and plotting to fire entire chains of people investigating you. People have gone to jail for far less.

      Trump's on-air confessions to illegal misuse of campaign funds because he doesn't even understand the law.

      Abuse of office by leveraging his position and resources to seek retribution against political adversaries. (e.g. Revoking security clearances for political reasons)

      Muller and a half dozen ongoing independent criminal investigations are going to destroy Trump, his family and all of his buddies. They deserve everything they are about to get.

    9. Re:Duty to Country? by mishehu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If enough of them sign their name to it, it will force the hand. I happen to agree with David Frum's take on this. Zontar, despite being mindless, is echoing some of what David Frum also says.

    10. Re: Duty to Country? by mishehu · · Score: 1

      Hate to burst your bubble there, AC, but "high crimes and misdemeanors" is explicitly vague for a reason. It is up to Congress - in other words "the people" to impeach - and it is up to the senate - in other words "the states" - to try him based upon the impeachment. There's no codified threshold for what actually constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors". In history we've had impeachments for FAR more minor transgressions than what has happened in the past few years here.

    11. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please provide a list of high crimes and misdemeanors that add up to impeachable offenses.

      He's literally been attempting to revoke citizenship of naturalized us citizens which is against our constitution, our supreme courts rulings and our international treaties. That alone is more than enough to bring impeachment charges.

    12. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If he were an officer in any branch of service instead of the commander in chief, he'd have been dishonorably discharged for conduct unbecoming.

    13. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's literally been attempting to revoke citizenship of naturalized us citizens

      Sorry, that should say natural born us citizens, not naturalized.

    14. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about asking the Justice Department to not prosecute crimes because it might hurt Republican chances in the election:
      https://www.newsweek.com/trump...

    15. Re:Duty to Country? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This also means that invoking the 25th amendment will backfire. After invoking that amendment, congress takes over. And that this point in time with elections upcoming, they will all loudly shout "I still love Trump so please vote for me!!" after which the VP and majority of the cabinet will quickly find themselves out of a job.

    16. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite.

      I'm no fan of Trump, but the behaviour of the establishment swamp/media has been reprehensible. I've never seen a newly elected president so reviled, lied about and abused.

      It's no surprise that it's come in the run up to the mid-terms.

      Damn you idiots for making me feel sympathy for a billionaire.

      There's only one bright side here. The US is slowly learning what the UK learned a long time ago. There's no such thing as fair journalism. The US has had a touching and quaint idea that journalists are somehow noble. When in reality they are despicable.

      The UK print media is vile, extraordinarily partisan and completely without ethics or a moral compass. It's where the US is going once it's finished growing up.

    17. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so every republican in congress should be strung-up on flag poles by their designer briefs til they resign or choose to vote for impeachment... and then they should be tossed in prison for life for treason.

    18. Re:Duty to Country? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      As I understand it they are not undermining the president though. They cover some of his mistakes. So they make him look better and avoid the escalation towards invoking the 25th Amendment. They help Trump to stay in his position, avoid the ultimate fail of the Republicans, and the government crisis that would paralyze the US for months.

    19. Re:Duty to Country? by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      They probably didn't tell him about the aliens at Area 51 either.

    20. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but. Crooked Hillary? Banghazi, mail servers? That surely trumps treason.

    21. Re:Duty to Country? by gtall · · Score: 1

      "is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional." So what you are saying is that he's well-qualified to be in this alleged administration.

    22. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is the President, he has legal authority to reveal whatever he chooses. And that claim by an Anonymous source was debunked by H.R. Mc Master who was actually in the room with him. (also he didn't reveal sub locations, it was alleged that he revealed Israeli intelligence sources)

      He never solicited an illegal act. He joked about asking the Russians who were known to have hacked the DNC servers for the missing emails. Yes an attempt to hack her server happened shortly afterwards but there is zero proof of any direct connection by him to the attempt to obtain the emails.

      He has not obstructed justice, Yes he fired the inept Comey, but those actually overseeing the investigation of the alleged collusion have not been fired. From Rod Rosenstein on down they are still in position and working.

      Again under the same statutes that grant him Original Classifying authority to determine what to reveal to allies, he also has full authority to revoke clearances of those abusing their former positions to smear him. That's not a crime, it should happen more often to those who leave high level office at the change of an administration.

      Mueller is the only ongoing investigation, and so far he has yet to change his statement that Trump is not a suspect.

      Any other leftist wet dreams you want to claim are High crimes and misdemeanors? Because so far you have nothing.

    23. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had exactly three Impeachment proceedings. Johnson for violation of the Tenure of Office Act when he removed the Secretary of War. This action was done in direct opposition to Congress which had used the Act to try to limit the powers of the President. He was impeached for contempt of congress and violation of the Tenure Act as well as other charges. He was found not guilty by one vote in the Senate and the Tenure of Office Act was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

      Nixon for the attempt to cover-up the Watergate affair where he used government resources to spy on the Democratic Party's election efforts (similar to how Obama had the FBI spying on the Trump campaign) and then tried to cover it up and deny any knowledge and involvement. He resigned before the articles of impeachment could be voted out the House.

      Clinton was impeached for perjury, lying under oath.

      None of the impeachment charges were for minor events or crimes. And I have yet to see Trump come anywhere near equaling the severity of what the three prior presidents faced with impeachment have done

    24. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed! He has done no such thing, as there is no constitutional authority for such. And it is not unconstitutional to revoke citizenship, there are reasons for doing so found in the US code and they have so far stood up to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. International treaty has no bearing on whether any nation can grant, or revoke citizenship, that is purely an internal matter for each nation to decide.

    25. Re: Duty to Country? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      If a newly elected president is so universally reviled, maybe that indicates the problem lies with him, not those reporting on him.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    26. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about confiding in the American People? Resign, then make a public stink.

    27. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impeached him for what, not being a politician and proving that Hillary was the worst candidate to ever run for office? Show proof of a single high crime or misdemeanor that would warrant impeachment.

      As for the gutless anonymous writer, he is making the claim he's part of a group purposefully trying to thwart a legally and duly elected President simply because he opposes his policies of stripping power from our democratic establishments. Looks to me like this person is in violation of US 18 Code Chapter 115 Section 2384 :

      If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

      (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

    28. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such as? No president has even been removed from office by impeachment. Nixon probably would have been but he resigned before they could do so. Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton failed to get the required senate votes to remove them from office and were acquitted. Furthermore everyone acts like Trump is such a criminal but I've yet to see what he's done that qualifies as a high crime. He certainly pisses people off but being offensive is not a crime. Neither is using social media as a bully pulpit, even if you happen to dislike his methods.

    29. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Media spreads lies about every single Republican President and hide the truth about Democratic Presidents. So in that respect this is no different than past admins. This time, however, it isn't just the media and Dems, it is the threatened Republican elites piling on.

      maybe that indicates the problem lies with him

      My take is just the opposite of yours, if everyone of the elitist politician and media class are against you, seems to me you're doing something right for those of us not part of that cabal.

    30. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans in congress know how to deal with Trump now. They appease him, make him look great and say nice things about him then put something in front of him to sign. He doesn't care to read more that 5 bullet points of anything to sign so it is a win for anyone who can get anything in front of him. Neither party would have a problem with this if the tables were turned. It just turned out that Trump ended up a republican because they would have him.

    31. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I so out of touch?


      No, its the establishment swamp/media/majority US population who are wrong

    32. Re:Duty to Country? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Yeah they're gearing up the narrative to replace Trump after the midterms, when he'll probably fire Sessions and try to shut down the Mueller probe, which will trigger some sort of document dump or media leak and then state charges against the unindicted. If Russia really has blackmail on him, that'll get released right around the election to create maximum chaos, as well.

    33. Re:Duty to Country? by swillden · · Score: 1

      But since Congress hasn’t demonstrated the presence of even a nascent backbone, these insiders might figure this is the only way left they can truly serve the country... which is what they’re sworn to do

      They're sworn to uphold the constitution, not to serve the country. Normally those two things are the same, but maybe not in this case.

      I'm actually undecided on whether the path the anonymous author and his colleagues have chosen is the most moral option. But if you want to look specifically at what they swore to do... they should use the 25th to remove him since that's the constitutional approach. There's nothing in the constitution that authorizes members of the executive branch to defy their boss if they don't like his decisions.

      What makes me undecided is that I'm not sure the 25th would work. If the president and his VP and cabinet disagree on his ability to lead, the 25th leaves it to Congress to decide, and requires a 2/3 majority of both houses to permanently oust the president. What, do you think, is the probability that you could get a 2/3 majority of both houses to oust Trump? I think the most likely outcome of an attempt to use the 25th is that Trump would remain president and all of the cabinet officials who supported his removal would be replaced with others who are willing to do what they're told.

      In contrast, impeachment requires only a simple majority of the House, plus a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict and remove. And it seems likely that Mueller's investigation will provide a strong basis for impeachment and conviction, at least with respect to obstruction of justice, and perhaps violation of campaign finance laws (which is what the "collusion" with Russia would really be).

      That being the case, it seems to me that there's a conflict here between upholding the constitution and serving the country, which is why I'm not certain that the anonymous official and his colleagues haven't taken the higher moral path, focusing on protecting the country until Mueller gathers enough evidence to successfully remove Trump. Or until the voters change the balance of power in Congress, or remove Trump in 2020.

      OTOH, voters could choose to retain Trump, even after having seen his incompetence. In that case, I guess his senior officials should bow to their will and carry out his directives, regardless of their impact.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    34. Re:Duty to Country? by Spinlock_1977 · · Score: 1

      Trump and Julliani decided to debate his competence in the public, rather than the courts. Sauce for the goose, bitches.

      --
      - The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
    35. Re: Duty to Country? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Please provide a list of high crimes and misdemeanors that add up to impeachable offenses.

      We're still waiting for the details, but it seems quite likely that there is solid evidence of obstruction of justice (his recent tweet regarding the prosecution of Hunter and Collins was a big mistake, since it demonstrates Trump's commitment to partisan politics and personal benefit over the rule of law, helping to demonstrate motive for the other ways he's obstructed justice) and possibly violation of campaign finance law and/or conspiracy to violate campaign finance law. Note that obstruction and conspiracy are crimes in and of themselves. If Trump didn't actually violate campaign finance law, but merely conspired to, that's a crime. Even if he neither violated it nor conspired to violate it, attempting to obstruct the investigation is a crime.

      In addition, Trump has made use of his office to enrich himself, in many ways. If any of the enrichment came from foreign governments -- even something so minor as a foreign government official paying to play at one of his golf courses in order to curry favor -- that's a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. There are really, really good reasons why previous presidents have chosen to move their assets into a blind trust and divest any that provide an obvious connection to themselves. Trump's decision not to do those things has left him wide open there, though the GOP-controlled Congress is choosing to look the other way and Mueller's mandate doesn't authorize him to look into emoluments.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    36. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.

      Yeah, the president should resign.

      See, this is just par for the course, Trump should resign, and everyone in the white house should be sacked.

    37. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An anonymous letter is inadmissible in court. It is labeled "hearsay."

      A person has the right to face his accuser, but not if he is a conservative I guess.

      You libs on these blogs should remember that Pierre-Joseph Proudrhon once said,"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, seized, censured, commanded, by beings who have neither title, nor knowledge, nor virtue. To be governed is to have every operation, every transaction, every movement noted, registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, indorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, corrected.
      Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

      William F. Buckley once said that he would rather be governed by the first 500+ people in the Boston phone book than the incompetent mendacious fossils in Congress.

      I guess the term pukka sahib applies to members of Congress also.

    38. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional."

      Well, one good turn deserves another, doesn't it? Or are you not a believer in the Golden Rule?

      Trump is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional, so what's your fucking problem being the same way towards him? Treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated.

    39. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Might as well hand control of the country to SJW libtards. I'd prefer being ruled by Russia to having that."

      Get the fuck out of my country.

    40. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, Trump may not be wrong.

      *IF* the story is false, then it would be libel (against Trump) which is considered unlawful (not because it is Trump or the President, but for an average person). The fact it is the President, libel would be a lot harder to prosecute because more leeway is given in criticizing/mocking/parodying the government and government officials (or any public figure).

      The act of trying to install fear and intimidate people through an unlawful act is the definition of terrorism (well some definitions require physical action, but the terrorist brand has been weakened of the years. Bush made it easier (too easy) to grab/prosecute/convict people for terrorism, Obama made it easier to call people terrorists.

      If the person is a US citizen, then terrorism is considered treason when directed against the US. And I don't think there is much argument that the story was meant to instill fear in the people of the US., well and to annoy Trump

      lol captcha: testify

    41. Re:Duty to Country? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But since Congress hasnâ(TM)t demonstrated the presence of even a nascent backbone,

      Sure they have. But Congress is a conjoined twin and the backbone is located in the smaller of the two, and the larger "half" can flop around to the extent that the smaller can't do anything with their spine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:Duty to Country? by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.

      Sometimes, like Snowden, you work with what you have.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    43. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.

      By that definition, revolutions are unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional. I'm sure that really hurt the feelings of the commoners on Bastille Day.

    44. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has been listed as an unnamed person of interest involved in multiple crimes in both the Manafort and Cohen trials/hearings. The only reason the president hasn't been specifically named for crimes at this time is because the law doesn't allow it.

      By almost every measure the Mueller special counsel has been the most productive and wildly successful for the amount of time they've been working. I don't see that as a coincidence, in fact I think Mueller is playing nice because aggressively revealing Trump for who he is harms the country's reputation more than just letting him ruin himself.

    45. Re:Duty to Country? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If enough of them sign their name to it, it will force the hand.

      If Rs would be willing to sign their name to it, they would be Ds.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with this. I'm not a fan of Trump, at all. In fact, I still have a hard time believing he's the President. But, he is. That's a fact we have to accept.

      These people working against him from inside his administration are likely giddy on the inside because they got a President in office that makes it easy to work behind his back. To steal things off his desk before he can sign them. To nullify his position before it can become policy. To sway or turn this way or that.

      Doing all that rather than attempting to outwardly stop him from being in office is a definitive power grab, and not really a positive step for the country or the government as a whole. It's just one more level of corruption in an administration that appears to be absolutely wracked with corruption. The entire op-ed comes off as an attempt to convince themselves that they're doing the right thing by being sneaking, back-stabbing cunts rather than doing their job as it should be done. Even the wording, "the adults are in the room" makes the whole thing feel extra creepy-weird. Yeah, as a common citizen, I do see Trump as not quite an actual adult, but damn if it's right for one of his officials to refer to him that way. It's crap.

      This presidency and the surrounding chaos are definitively changing the way we'll perceive the American government for a long time to come. There's no hiding of the corruption and disdain for societal or even moral norms. It's just flat out wrong after wrong after wrong, all being propped up by someone saying, "we're trying to do the right thing here." Well, try harder you fucktards. You're failing every test laid before you, and somehow still declaring victory.

    47. Re: Duty to Country? by Straif · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure which international treaties you're referring too but a large number, if not a majority, of countries don't grant birthright citizenship and technically there is no legal requirement for the US to either.

      The constitution grants citizenship to "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Children of foreign nationals are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States unless at least one parent already has citizenship. This is why as an American it is still possible to break several US laws when travelling abroad because you are still subjects to US jurisdiction but someone from France doesn't have to worry about US law when visiting Singapore.

      Now there may be some court rulings but as they do not have a strong Constitutional backing a properly written law could override them.

      There is nothing illegal or impeachable about actually enforcing the Constitution though impeachment being a political procedure technically they could impeach because he likes his steaks too well done.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    48. Re: Duty to Country? by Straif · · Score: 1

      As the classifying authority the President can pretty much legally tell whatever he wants to whoever he wants. Not necessarily smart but also not illegal.

      Joking at a televised rally about "maybe they can get her 30,000 emails" has no bearing on any actions some foreign power may have taken. The actual deletion of the 30,000 emails was illegal (as they were under subpoena) but in a discussion about Russian Hacking joking that maybe they have them is just that, a joke.

      Very few legal scholars believe anything Trump has done has reached the level of Obstruction. The investigation continues unabated even though legally he has the authority to fire anyone involved, including Mueller himself.

      What campaign funds has he misused? If you're referring to the payoffs they were all private payments and no one has made any claims otherwise.

      Abuse of office because he revoked security clearances for people who no longer hold any position in the US Government? While a tradition to let high level appointees keep their clearances it is only that, a tradition. Any low level employee will tell you as soon as they leave their jobs their clearances are revoked. Regardless, a lack of security clearance doesn't stop any former government employee from spouting off on CNN, it just means they can't trade on their access for financial gain, which they all claim they would never do anyway so what's the difference?

      Mueller investigations have so far amounted to next to nothing. The convictions are all process crimes (lying to the FBI which is effectively a trumped up charge (pardon the pun)) or completely unrelated to anything having to do with the election or Trump. The closest he has is Cohen who claims he was told to payoff Daniels to help the campaign. Even if true, it was with personal funds and would amount to a small fine. That's if it could be proven to be 100% true. All Trump has to claim was it was protect his family from the embarrassment and there's really no case (ex, John Edwards).

      Trump may be immoral and brash but there is almost no chance he will be charged with anything that's even be proposed up to this point and while the House may impeach if the Dems take control there is no way the Senate will even convict and penalize him.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    49. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reads a lot like Bill Clinton actually. (Wait.. "gets in bed with dictators"? Are you high?) Only, Clinton got impeached for lying under oath about his affairs, not for having his multiple affairs ....WHILE CURRENTLY IN OFFICE I might add, not some 10 year old event. But as I recall, that was unimportant to dems then because the economy was good. Funny how that doesn't apply now.
      People will support Trump because as childish as he is, he's still a better choice than Hillary or Bernie or Jeb. I thought people hated politicians; now that we have a non-politician businessman in office, everyone is crying about it? The country isn't burning, he's just shaking the tree, and will probably be gone in 2 more years.

    50. Re:Duty to Country? by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.

      Unprofessional and cowardly are arguable but it's definitely not unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution does not demand loyalty to anyone, not even the President. In fact, the U.S. Constitution is all about the limitations put upon government. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution exists expressly so that we can speak out in opposition of those in power.

      I suggest you read the U.S. Constitution, it's pretty great, not perfect but still quite good.

      Article II section 1:
      "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." (very first sentence)

      The author of the letter is admitting to exercising executive power without being the President. That's a pretty clear violation, and completely separate from writing a letter to the NYT.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    51. Re: Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't consume to much CNN and NY Times bullshit or you'll end up with Trump Derangement Syndrome like this moron.

    52. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's also moving the goalposts. That's not what we're talking about. It is a whataboutism meant to distract. You wanna kill the messenger and ignore the message. Not happening.

    53. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. So who does this person confide in? Republican controlled congress or senate?

      Irrelevant, Republicans also mostly hate him because he's not one of them, and most only pretend to support him because their voters support his agenda and it would hurt reelection chances. If they thought they could get away with it or knew that they wouldn't be reelected, they'd do like McCain did when he voted against Trump's repeal of Obamacare despite having campaigned on repealing it.

    54. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is called the loyal opposition. The only odd thing is that it is a Trump appointee. Though in past administrations there were INTENTIONAL appointments of people from opposed political camps as amazing as that may sound to a Trump git.

      Your understanding of how government works in the US is no understanding at all. It is in fact vile and dangerous. It is NOT the duty of government workers to be personally loyal to any elected official. In fact such loyalties are properly considered improper and corrupt. It is the duty of the government employee to be loyal to the principles of our country and the Constitution.

      Your assertion has no merit and no historical or intellectual basis. In fact the complete opposite.

    55. Re:Duty to Country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the public. the voters. And that means identify yourself, your position to see the "truth of what you claim, and evaluate it convincingly, not as a timid and secret voice.
      ur

  6. ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae. If there was a tech angle fine, but I don't see any. If the editors are going to greenlight political stories stick to the major ones. Not some random staffer who's dad probably made him take the job. I mean, we've got a SCOTUS nomination process going on right now...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think a traitor operating at the highest levels of government isnt important until we find out if the treasonous scumbag uses an iPhone or android or expresses an opinion on vi vs emacs?

      Idiot.

    2. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae. If there was a tech angle fine, but I don't see any. If the editors are going to greenlight political stories stick to the major ones. Not some random staffer who's dad probably made him take the job. I mean, we've got a SCOTUS nomination process going on right now...

      We don't give care what you want or don't want.

      If you don't like the article, don't read it.

      The world does not exist to cater to you, you stupid twerp.

    3. Re: ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      treasonous scumbag

      That's Mr President to you, moron.

    4. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae.

      A manifesto of a conspiracy of deep-state moles in the White House, allegedly composed of or including multiple Trump appointees, sabotaging the policies and decisions of the duly-elected President of the U.S., rather than implementing them? Reported by the New York Times, who claims to know the author and the work is genuine?

      Sounds like "news for nerds, stuff that matters" to me. Because it matters to me, and my nerd credentials are some of the strongest here.

      They might not like his decisions. But he IS the President. And a large part of what he was elected for was to clean out ("drain") the running-roughshod-over-the-citizens bureaucrats.

      If the citizens can't bring the government to heel by electing their preferred executive and representatives, it's no longer a republic - it's an out-of-control tyranny. With the soapbox and the ballot box no longer functioning, you're on the verge of a civil war. If we go there, and our "democratic institutions" suffer or die, it will be the fault of the oh-so-self-righteous cabal claiming to be working to "preserve" them.

      (I'm reminded of a Vietnam era quote: "We had to burn the village in order to save it.")

      A little hint: To be effective at negotiation (especially when heading off a nuclear World War, but also down the scale to trade negotiations, promoting legislation, or exerting control over an entrenched bureaucracy), a President has to be competent at brinksmanship. That includes looking "crazy enough to do it" when he threatens something bad for his opposite number's interests.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't news for nerd.

      This is news to push a political agenda, which seems to be what is taking over /. stories these days. I for one am getting bored with it.

      And yes, way to make your point by name calling, real class there.

    6. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, we've got a SCOTUS nomination process going on right now...

      Trump: So how do we take the cameras away from the SCOTUS hearings?

      Staffer: How 'bout I "leak" an "anonymous" letter claiming there is a conspiracy against your policies inside your cabinet. Betrayal in the white house. Then you can smack it down on TV and Twitter and get everyone wondering who the traitor is.

      Trump: Sounds great, Ms. DeVos. Let's get that done.

    7. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae.

      No. Just no. This stuff matters.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by guruevi · · Score: 1, Troll

      Without looking, it's posted by either BeauHD or msmash. Political hitpieces by the left have become par for the course here on /.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    9. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like foreign interference in our elections the idea of a cabal of unelected curia seizing control of the west wing should be something we all oppose, regardless of party affiliation.

      I think NYT made a significant error by publishing an anonymous confession disguised as an op-ed and that there is a legitimate case that they need to turn their source over to the government in the interest of national security. Also, this may be the first time I have agreed with 45 on anything of substance.

    10. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where 'political hit piece' is defined in the Trumpian sense: any news, no matter how factual, that makes you uncomfortable.

    11. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where 'hit piece' is defined in the Muskian sense: any news, no matter how factual, that makes you uncomfortable.

      Fixed that for you.

    12. Re: ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, yes, Mr President treasonus scumbag does have a ring to it.

    13. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae."

      +1000

      I come to Slashdot because I want news about technology. Not more never-ending political crap. I wish we, the users, had more power to zap such stuff right off the server.

      >"If the editors are going to greenlight political stories stick to the major ones."

      Or better yet, don't approve ANY political stories, unless they *really* relate to technology. And even then, perhaps to have at least a little impartiality.

    14. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae. If there was a tech angle fine, but I don't see any. If the editors are going to greenlight political stories stick to the major ones. Not some random staffer who's dad probably made him take the job. I mean, we've got a SCOTUS nomination process going on right now...

      It suits the politics of the current people who run the site.

      And it gets page clicks.

    15. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      comment sub system stress test

    16. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"snip...

      I come to Slashdot because I want news about technology. snip...

      That has been in very short supply over the last decade.

    17. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it does not. This is gossip. Internet banality. Far more important things are happening and this is not it. It is misdirection at best.

      And we do not come to Slashdot for the politics.

    18. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > a President has to be competent

      LOL. That's some next level trolling.

    19. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. We would be better off with an article with a more scientific angle, like statistically how often Vice President Pence uses the word "lodestar" compared with other members of the Whitehouse.

    20. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Eat shit and die.

    21. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      The problem with your argument is the "duly-elected" adjective, and then "They might not like his decisions. But he IS the President". Trump was elected and governs by the constitutional rules in place but those rules are flawed and he got in via a loophole which allowed him to be elected while his general election opponent got millions of more votes than he did. OK, fine that's the Constitution with its anti-democratic electoral college. But when you get elected by a minority of the vote you shouldn't try to (or be able to) run the country like you got some massive mandate and step all over the majority who voted against you -- that's some third world one-party crap.
      Anyone with nerd credentials should have the engineering insight to recognize that a system which produces massively differing policy outcomes based on the swing of a few thousand votes is unstable and flawed. If your engineered system runs into a corner case and starts to tear itself apart do you want to step in and override the programming in the emergency or just stand back and say, "that's the way its built, we've got to just let it run."?

    22. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really doesn't. This being an anonymous op-ed, there's nothing actionable. It's all rumor and nothing more. If they wanted to cover this here, they should have found somebody running it through an ML analyzer to figure out who wrote it. Right now all we know is somebody who claims to be a high level staffer wrote this. Are they actually a white house staffer? If so, are they actually high level? What is the definition of high level being used? For all we know it's somebody who is a step above white house intern that Trump doesn't even know exists.

    23. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "This is news to push a political agenda, which seems to be what is taking over everything these days."

      FTFY

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    24. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Trump was elected and governs by the constitutional rules in place but those rules are flawed and he got in via a loophole which allowed him to be elected while his generals election opponent got millions of more votes than he did.

      The Electoral College is far from a "flawed" "loophole". It is the piece of the system that protects the little states from being completely overrun by a single-digit handful of giant ones. That was an issue at the founding - part of the deal that made it politically possible for the small states to join. And it is an issue now - without it "flyover country" would have no federal voice at all. It is working exactly as intended.

      It is also the firewall that keeps a corrupt political machine in a large state from just cranking out enough fake votes to pick the president of its choice. With it in place, such a machine is limited to its state's share of the electors - which it would have had anyhow. (Imagine the Florida recount if the president was elected by popular vote. We'd have had to recount the ENTIRE COUNTRY.) ... a system which produces massively differing policy outcomes based on the swing of a few thousand votes is unstable and flawed.

      Not necessarily. it depends on the purpose of the system. You seem to think that the purpose of the electoral system in a republic is to be fair. It is not.

      The purpose of a republic's electoral system is twofold: 1) To be decisive. 2) To predict the outcome of a war to reverse its results, with sufficient accuracy to convince the losers they would also lose the war, so they don't start it. In a close race you have a situation where a fight would be so even that it would be protracted and devastating to both sides. So even if it's wrong about the final outcome, it still lets the losers know that they'd be worse off fighting than organizing for the next election cycle.

      As to whether Trump is a "minority president" - he won by the rules in place. If different rules were in place he'd have played differently. Feel free to speculate about whether he'd have won under those rules, too. But you won't convince anyone on either side about your hypothetical

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    25. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you're not a nerd....

    26. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      /.'s top contributor was behind this oped - clearly something relevant

    27. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who you wanted to win claimed it's absurd for anyone to question our election system. It can't be rigged. Anything else is a delplorable's conspiracy.

      At least be consistent.

    28. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love your loophole comment. What it tells me is you don't know a damn thing about what you're talking about. The president is elected by the states. Not the people. It was designed that way on purpose. The fact that the states choose how to vote by holding elections with their people is the states choice, but not a mandate for how the presidential election is supposed to be held. No state is required to do that.

    29. Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Village"?
      Ben Tre was a provincial capitol of 35,000 people. Tell me about your "democratic institutions".

  7. Do you still want backdoors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you still want backdoors for someone on the warpath to find a leaker?

  8. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, not Wall St. and London bankers.

  9. Grammatical Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't this read "Anonymous Coward says White House Behind New York Times Op-Ed Should Resign."
    Just sayin'.

  10. Plot Twist.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plot Twist.. the "anonymous coward" is not a he, she is Sarah Sanders. lol

  11. Scary takeaway by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly the most disconcerting thing about this is that the author cites some of the worst things this administration has done as their few "successes" and says they were accomplished despite, not because of, Trump. I think Trump is an amoral buffoon and a disgrace to the nation as much as the author seems to, but I'm honestly a little glad to hear that that buffoon is gumming up the plans of those who want to rape and pillage our country for their own profit, instead of Darth Pence streamlining that process.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:Scary takeaway by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Honestly the most disconcerting thing about this is that the author cites some of the worst things this administration has done as their few "successes" and says they were accomplished despite, not because of, Trump. I think Trump is an amoral buffoon and a disgrace to the nation as much as the author seems to, but I'm honestly a little glad to hear that that buffoon is gumming up the plans of those who want to rape and pillage our country for their own profit, instead of Darth Pence streamlining that process.

      That might be only half true, I think a lot of politics is people coming in saying "I want to do X, Y, and Z!" and then they're confronted with all the potential consequences to they end up saying, "Fine, I'll only do x and y". That was one of the big complaints with Obama, where a lot of his policies fell short of his rhetoric. But I thought that was just a consequence of a responsible leader moderating their ideas.

      In the US I think the President is the one who's supposed to play that role, they're the one with the legacy and they're the one who's supposed to be responsible for the entire country, not just a particular region or base. But Trump doesn't really care about that other stuff, so when someone comes up saying "I want to do X!" he lets them do "X!" without thinking about the consequences.

      For instance, on the tax bill I think a lot of GOP types really wanted to do a big massive corporate tax cut, both for ideological reasons but also to pay back their donors, and they went into the room trying to write a massive tax cut.

      A President worried about their legacy and feeling personally accountable for the country's long term welfare probably would have pushed for a more moderate bill, even a President Rubio or Ryan would probably have made a more moderate bill if they were the President and their deficit and long term fiscal situation was their problem. But it wasn't their problem, and Trump didn't consider it his problem, so the tax bill went through as is because no one in power was worried about the consequences.

      That's one of the problems with this Shadow Presidency, they have a lot of the power but none of the accountability, and power without accountability leads to really bad decisions.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Scary takeaway by guruevi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And what were the consequences of the tax bill other than a huge economic upshot in the last few months? You may not like a particular policy but there is more at stake than simply giving "rich people a break". Per Bernie Sanders and others on the left, rich people and corporations don't pay taxes, so the logical conclusion is that you can't increase or decrease their tax load because they have none.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gargantuan deficits? Bill Clinton would have run a surplus pretty much every year of his two-term presidency if he hadn't had to pay the INTEREST on the debt that Reagan and Bush I ran up.

      AC

    4. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The consequence is reduced federal revenues by $200 billion.
      Meanwhile the Trump administration have increased federal spending with about $300 billion.
      So we are looking at deficit increasing with $500 billion more than previously.

      The US debt is increasing with $1500 more per person annually and my bet is that you aren't seeing that money being put to good use, neither in your own account nor in better social services.

      Of course this isn't going to come back and bite this administration. When they get voted out and a responsible person gets power the debt will be blamed on them.
      Think four years of this and then an adult shows up and say. "Hey, every citizen needs to pay $6000* if we want this country back on track" (or $12000 if your child can't pay for themselves)
      That person is going to be lynched.

    5. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The consequences of borrowing a lot of money are often not clear for years after the borrowing. The tax cut increased the deficit massively. It may have boosted the economy (it was already doing well - unemployment rate, corporate profits, etc, have been improving for the last 8 or 9 years), but that might be a short-term sugar high. A larger economy will somewhat reduce the deficit induced but under no reasonable scenario covers it all. The crazy thing is that we have this gigantic deficit when the economy is doing well. What happens when the next recession hits (and it will)?

      If you look at what happened with Greece you can see what happens when debts get too high. Eventually the lenders get to dictate how you're going to pay it back (yes, the US is different in that it borrows in currency that it controls).

    6. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except so far the tax bill is working. unemployment is down, job creation is up, the markets have been climbing consistently except for a few companies dumb enough to virtue signal. But he we are, the economy is great. Your argument would only make sense if things weren't going well and it was a disaster. But its not. So you sound petty.

    7. Re:Scary takeaway by quantaman · · Score: 2

      And what were the consequences of the tax bill other than a huge economic upshot in the last few months? You may not like a particular policy but there is more at stake than simply giving "rich people a break".

      The stock market is doing well because the stock market is based on corporate earnings and corporations just got a massive tax. The economy seems to just be holding steady from Obama, but that might be an illusion since wages have stagnated and some of the recent manufacturing boom is just companies stocking up on supplies before a trade war.

      Even if it did cause some economic growth you still need to pay off your bills and not cause a massive hole in the deficit, this is the exact lesson we learned with the Bush tax cuts. You don't get rich by going on a shopping spree.

      Per Bernie Sanders and others on the left, rich people and corporations don't pay taxes, so the logical conclusion is that you can't increase or decrease their tax load because they have none.

      I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke, hyperbole, or just a really confused statement.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what were the consequences of the tax bill other than a huge economic upshot in the last few months?

      Ask any federal government employee how their promised pay increase is going.

    9. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Per Bernie Sanders and others on the left, rich people and corporations don't pay taxes."

      -- Peyton Strawmanning

    10. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what were the consequences of the tax bill other than a huge economic upshot in the last few months?

      Doubling the annual deficit?

    11. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's both slowing down the bad stuff and trying to do worse at the same time.

    12. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump admits he dosen't

    13. Re:Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what were the consequences of the tax bill other than a huge economic upshot in the last few months?

      Short-term thinking at its finest. "Honey, why are you so worried? We've been driving on the left side of the road for the last few miles and we're fine. If I see a car approach, I'll be sure to just swerve back to the right side and all will be fine!"

    14. Re:Scary takeaway by greythax · · Score: 1

      There are about 130,000,000 tax payers in the US. The tax cut is projected to add an extra 1.3 trillion to the national debt. Split evenly, that means that every single one of us is on the hook for $10,000 of extra debt. You might try looking up your projected tax relief. I did, and it doesn't come out even until around the $250,000 mark.

      For me, the consequence of this tax cut is that I was forced to take a loan with a really shitty interest rate. And if you make less than $250,000, so were you.

    15. Re: Scary takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it's all unverified BS by what sounds like a petulent child

    16. Re:Scary takeaway by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I took a loan with an excellent interest rate. Bought a house at a fixed 1.8% for 30 years earlier this year.

      I make (a lot) less than $250,000 and my taxes got reduced significantly. There are tax calculators out there (H&R Block, TurboTax, TaxACT), my federal tax burden (before any deductions) for 2017 would be $6,939.00, the same settings in 2018 come to $2,517.00.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  12. Absolutely by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever wrote this is a coward.

    There are no "unsung heroes" in this White House. This is an escape hatch for the people who followed power for power's sake: "oh, sure, I was really fighting the good fight inside the White House, so you should be thanking me!"

    Think there's a real problem here? Think the President is unfit for office? Then get to work on 25th Amendment proceedings if you're in a position to do so, or if not, resign and tell all of this to Congress. Don't stage a mini-coup and call it heroism. That's bull.

    It's no secret the President is unfit for this office. It hasn't ever been a secret. This staffer, and their allies? They're complicit in everything. This is just a weak-ass attempt to make themselves look good.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Absolutely by quantaman · · Score: 0

      There's a bit of that. But you can't just invoke the 25th when a big portion of the country thinks the leader is doing awesome and the Deep State is planning a coup, it's a recipe for some serious civil unrest (and an even more extreme nominee next time around).

      I think the author is trying to build the public case that Trump is unfit. This can help for the 25th, impeachment, the next election, giving congress political cover to pass veto-proof bills to keep Trump in check, or even just forcing a responsible nomination when Sessions get's fired (ie, if the adults in the room are the only ones protecting the country don't let him fire them and staff it with children).

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there is only one person who is less fit for office, and their name is Hillary.

    3. Re: Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Two people.

      After all, Killary got rekt by Donald Fucking Trump.

      But crazy uncle Bernie couldn't even put up a fight against her.

    4. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoever wrote this is a coward.

      There are no "unsung heroes" in this White House. This is an escape hatch for the people who followed power for power's sake: "oh, sure, I was really fighting the good fight inside the White House, so you should be thanking me!"

      Think there's a real problem here? Think the President is unfit for office? Then get to work on 25th Amendment proceedings if you're in a position to do so, or if not, resign and tell all of this to Congress. Don't stage a mini-coup and call it heroism. That's bull.

      Remember Watergate? Impeachment is the end of a long process, not its beginning. "Deep Throat" had a lot of work. And in the case of Nixon, it didn't even get there because he was smart enough to resign in exchange for a presidential pardon. Trump has already announced that he doesn't consider this necessary since he can just pardon himself.

    5. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this is the very scenario that keeps people trusting the US government and the future. I felt that when I listened to various opinions about Trump's behaviour, his Russia connections and business dealings, while knowing the depths of the administrative machine of the US government. A paranoid, or pessimistic person might suggest that this is a psy-ops intended to pacify the population: "Trust your government! We do our best even under difficult circumstances, and your voice and values are represented even in the executive branch." As a person who lives under a different political system with trust in the government widespread in the population, I would naturally applaud this message.

    6. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consequences ...

      can be fun; unfun also.

      Inevitably there are three possible outcomes of the coming election. These three outcomes are obvious: 1) a further majority, 2) a minority , 3) no significant change, perhaps a few seats.

      Regardless of who gains a majority and all the other influences this has the question remains of whether a government lacking the ability to pass veto-proof bills comes into play.

      If so it would further empower the judiciary and executive branches enough to potentially remove certain limits they currently operate under.

      CAPTCHA: frigid

    7. Re:Absolutely by guruevi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State and if true, staffers in the WH that are more powerful than the President.

      I think regardless of the rhetoric around this op-ed, I think it's a carefully constructed message which is either by the Trump camp himself to drum up support for their cause or the Deep State trying to warn a sitting President not to mess with them "or else".

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says somebody far less courageous, doing nothing other than posting a rant on ./

      You are the one complicit. They are not. They are doing something to stop this. You are doing nothing. What about courage? Even doing it anonymously they are taking a big risk for themselves for their families. You nothing, your life is unaffected, no risk. They are the kind of people that the world needs more; you are the type of garbage that the world needs less.

    9. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As soon as you say Deep State you sound like an idiot.

    10. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you've thought about this. If you were offered a position in the White House staff, would you simply decline? Or would you say "someone's got to do something" and try to make a difference?

      You have to bear in mind that if you don't take the job, someone else will and you will be unsure if that person will be helpful or a liability to this country in that position.

      Please don't thrown people blindly into the fire until you know the full story. I willing to be there was a lot of discussion or contemplation before many of the people with those jobs took those jobs.

    11. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State and if true, staffers in the WH that are more powerful than the President.

      I think regardless of the rhetoric around this op-ed, I think it's a carefully constructed message which is either by the Trump camp himself to drum up support for their cause or the Deep State trying to warn a sitting President not to mess with them "or else".

      The staffers only get to be more powerful than Trump because he's a moron. Even W. Bush would be involved and aware enough to be expecting a letter on topic X for him to review and sign, and would (at some point, presidents DO have a lot on their plate) circle back and start inquiring with the cabinet and staff "Where the hell is that letter on X?". It also implies that other actors are putting the kind of batshit letters that other Republicans recoil at in horror on Trump's desk expecting a signature.

    12. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'which is either by the Trump camp himself to drum up support for their cause or the Deep State trying to warn a sitting President not to mess with them'

      Or to assure the world that there is a functioning safety net. All administrations probably have had one, maybe in this case it's a little more necessary than average.

      There is a lot of rhetoric in the NYT not being especially fond of this administration, but I think this story might sadly be a source of comfort that something bad won't happen.

    13. Re:Absolutely by jittles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State and if true, staffers in the WH that are more powerful than the President.

      I think regardless of the rhetoric around this op-ed, I think it's a carefully constructed message which is either by the Trump camp himself to drum up support for their cause or the Deep State trying to warn a sitting President not to mess with them "or else".

      Oh don’t be ridiculous. Even a “mere secretary” has a lot more power and influence than you can ever possibly imagine. Someone in that role is obviously trusted or they would have never made it to that position. They can not only influence what documents and people come before the person they work for, but they can also control the order in which such information is presented simply by manipulating the calendar, email, and even snail mail of their boss. This is why rich and successful people often volunteer their children to be aides to senators and other “demeaning” jobs. The influence these people hold is real. It has been the case for thousands of years. People even manipulated kings this way. So go ahead and live in your deep state conspiracy but this is the most asinine excuse you could possibly come up with to justify its existence.

    14. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > more powerful than the President

      Anyone who has actually been paying attention for the last few years and actually understands what is going on knows that Trump's buffoonery is little more than a distraction. He is a fucking clown hand selected to distract everyone. The real governing is happening without his involvement and not in the useful-idiot blue collar Republican sense ("deep state" aka CIA/FBI is actually controlled by Clinton/Soros and space reptiles) but by the wealthy elite who are directing the total deregulation of industry and the piece by piece dismantling of our democracy. Nothing short of the undoing of the gains made by ordinary folk since the French Revolution. Republicans are going to get their second SCOTUS seat and then turn on Trump in order to make it seem like they suddenly give a fuck. Once they have SCOTUS locked down it is open season on, well, everything. And you know Republican plans because they have a tell. Just look at what foreign nations they want to start wars with you will know which societies they want to emulate.

    15. Re:Absolutely by swillden · · Score: 1

      Think there's a real problem here? Think the President is unfit for office? Then get to work on 25th Amendment proceedings

      Keep in mind that the 25th requires Congress to approve removal of the president, with a 2/3 majority of both houses. I think it's reasonable to assume that that would not happen, so the 25th is a dead letter in the current situation.

      if not, resign and tell all of this to Congress

      Again, you're assuming Congress is of a mind to listen. In reality, the options are "Use the 25th and hope Congress acts, resign and tell the press (then hope Congress acts?), or stage a mini-coup to protect the country." Well, or just hope the voters knew what they were doing and carry out the president's orders, regardless of how insane.

      To me, it's really unclear what the most moral path is, given Congress's clear unwillingness to act. A process-focused perspective would argue that you should follow the law, regardless of the consequences. An outcome-focused perspective would argue that you should do what you think is best for the country, even if it requires stretching the law (I don't see any actual breaking of the law here). Conservatives tend to focus on process and liberals on outcome (though there are exceptions). I can see both sides.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:Absolutely by swillden · · Score: 1

      And there is only one person who is less fit for office, and their name is Hillary.

      Hillary lost. Get over it. Hillary is irrelevant. "But Hillary..." is in no way a valid or useful argument in support of Trump or in opposition to his detractors.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:Absolutely by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      You are right. But this is slashdot and the communists will moderate you down to -5 pronto.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    18. Re:Absolutely by swillden · · Score: 1

      You are right. But this is slashdot and the communists will moderate you down to -5 pronto.

      It seems more likely that the Trumpian conservatives, who like to fall back on "But Hillary..." whenever Trump does something they can't find a way to defend, will mod me down, not the communists. The communists will agree with me on this one.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:Absolutely by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Take your crazy pills, you are getting crazy everywhere. Oh wait, you capitalized that. Suck a potato ivan. Stupid fuck.

    20. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really believe that the Failing New York Times would run a piece like this if it suspected it came from someone loyal to Trump? LOL.

    21. Re:Absolutely by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State and if true, staffers in the WH that are more powerful than the President.

      Apparently, Trump brought his own Deep State with him? Because all of Trump's staffers were hired by Trump, and he hires only the best people.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    22. Re:Absolutely by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State and if true, staffers in the WH that are more powerful than the President.

      I think regardless of the rhetoric around this op-ed, I think it's a carefully constructed message which is either by the Trump camp himself to drum up support for their cause or the Deep State trying to warn a sitting President not to mess with them "or else".

      DUDE, this guy was appointed by Trump, he was a Trump supported Trump brought in!!!!!!!!

    23. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State

      That's not what "Deep State" means. To be part of the Deep State, you have to:

      1. Be (effectively) governing (or obstructing governing) without constitutional authority (e.g. being elected or following orders from someone who was, or following existing laws, which is really just following orders from the elected legislature)
      2. Be in the civil service or the military (e.g. not a political appointee)
      3. Predate the current administration

      This op-ed admits to point #1, which is enough to qualify the author and his fellows as a shadow government. But the author claims he and most of his fellows work in the White House or the Cabinet, which makes them political appointees, and ones which were hired (directly or indirectly) by Trump during his time in office. Without points 2 and 3, that's not the "Deep" State; there is no continuity between administrations, no involvement of a long running conspiracy by civil servants fighting the policies of the elected President/Congress. It's members of the President's own party, chosen by him, after the election. Nothing "Deep" about it.

    24. Re:Absolutely by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      Not all communists are insane. I was a communist until I turned 25. Then I grew up.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    25. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing which defines "unfit for office" - The definition does not exist.
      That is your point of view and the Adults in this nation do not agree with it.

      The problem is that too much of the populace lacks the ability for any critical thinking.

      If the sheeple could discern a fact from a turd they would be very appreciative of the behavior of the current president.

      By the number of irrefutable facts, this president has done more for We The People that any person in government or business since 1965.

    26. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State

      Wrong. This isn't presented as ramblings from some low level bureaucrat that was appointed by Carter. Did you know that on 1/21/2017 when trump and bannon and miller walked into the white house it was completely empty save for some secret service agents? They had to personally hire the entire staff down to the janitors. The writer(s) is trumps own guy.

    27. Re:Absolutely by guruevi · · Score: 1

      What you just described is the definition of the deep state - a shadow government that manipulates the public faces of a legitimate government.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    28. Re:Absolutely by guruevi · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of "holdovers" in the Trump cabinet/White House. Tillerson was recommended by Condoleeza Rice, Pompeo was the CIA director; Mnuchin - Goldman Sachs banker; Mattis - General during both Bush and Obama etc etc.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    29. Re:Absolutely by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Except for half the cabinet, a lot of the ones that got fired were holdovers from or recommended by the Obama administration, Mattis even goes back all the way to the Bush administration.

      The "White House was empty" trope is fake news.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    30. Re:Absolutely by jittles · · Score: 1

      What you just described is the definition of the deep state - a shadow government that manipulates the public faces of a legitimate government.

      No. What I described is normal political influence unless you're describing a "deep state" that affects every single business, government, entity, and anything other group of people that has existed since the dawn of time. You're ridiculous. You probably ought to get outside and meet more people and learn to understand human nature. This is the same reason those reddit moderators continue to accept the abuse mentioned in a post a few days ago. They have a small position of power and influence and they take advantage of it.

    31. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by your logic, everyone Trump appoints to his administration is the Deep State. Makes sense :P

    32. Re:Absolutely by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Deep State was originally being used to describe the bureaucrats that were the constant between administrations regardless of which political party was in power. This would include to some extent political appointees which were moderate enough to not warrant replacing. For the most part though the deep state would be made up of the millions of regular civil servants, and contractors, exercising whatever discretionary power they have in their day to day duties.

      For this specific situation the Deep State doesn't really factor in because all of the likely parties involved were hand picked by Trump. It's actually kind of a paradox. Trump insists he's an excellent judge of talent/character and makes all the best decisions. Then gets upset when the people he picked actively work behind his back to de-fang his decisions.

      And on the topic of dampening the affects of a deep state, Trump has apparently done a very bad job of filling political appointee positions. I believe Pro Publica has a running series of articles regarding the issue. It all boils down to Trump leaving a lot of appointee positions unfilled, which would seem to me has to lead to him having less control over his branch of government than previous administrations.

  13. And he's proud of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What bugged me more than mucking with Donald Trump was the things he's proud of.

    Effective deregulation? Um, guys, those regulations weren't just written by some clown in a leather chair thinking, "Hey, let's make things hard for coal companies!". No. Those regulations came about because coal companies were killing people. People died for those regulations. Removing them? How many people do you want to kill off so coal barons can make more money?

    Historic tax reform? Um, no, that wasn't historic tax reform, that was a giant giveaway to the already massively rich at the cost of blowing the government's budget for at least the next 20 years. No, it's not going to 'trickle down'. No, it's not going to 'stimulate the economy'. It's going to rip off poor people and give money to the rich. I'm rich, and I look to save quite a bit from that "tax reform", and I still think it's asinine.

    A more robust military? Hello, ours is already by far the most expensive military in the world, and you want to spend MORE money on it? Howzabout spending a tiny fraction of that on peace instead?

    I know that Mr. Anonymous Coward (a different anonymous coward than this one) is a Republican, but each and every one of those 'accomplishments' is sheer stupidity.

    AC

    1. Re:And he's proud of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Record unemployment for blacks/minorities. Economy growing at 4+% (Obama claimed it couldnt be done). North Korea just yesterday mentioned they were continuing with de-nuclearization after last weeks dustup. SECOND! supreme court justice.

      You lefties are just pissed because you voted for Obama, and this is what you thought he would do. But he didnt, and now Trump is doing for the right what Obama could have done for the left.

    2. Re:And he's proud of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amen to all you said, I'll add their is a useful "proverb" related to regulations:

      Regulations are written in blood.

      Meaning, while sometimes the original purpose can have become obscured down the road, generally regulations were created because someone died for lack of that regulation.

      Just one outrageous example, for all the complaints about the FDA, before it, around the turn of the 20th century, opium based products were marketed as a baby teething pain reliever that any fool could pick up without prescription.

    3. Re:And he's proud of what?? by swillden · · Score: 2

      I know that Mr. Anonymous Coward (a different anonymous coward than this one) is a Republican, but each and every one of those 'accomplishments' is sheer stupidity.

      Please keep in mind that roughly 50% of the American people disagree with you, many of them quite intelligent and thoughtful. You may be right, but it's hardly as cut and dried as you paint it to be, as should be obvious given the large number of people on the other side of each of those questions.

      Note that I'm not arguing that you're wrong on the issues (in fact, I agree with you on all three of them, with some caveats and qualifications). I'm arguing that you should exercise some humility. I might also point out that arrogance like yours is a principal cause of Trump's election.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:And he's proud of what?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Please keep in mind that roughly 50% of the American people disagree with you, many of them quite intelligent and thoughtful.

      Well, no. If they were intelligent and thoughtful, they could and would see how those things are harmful in literally every way. Deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and excessive military spending are literally how Russia got where it is today. Make America Russian Again? At least when the Russians were the dominant white people in America all they were doing was trapping, and building a couple of forts.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:And he's proud of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A more robust military? Hello, ours is already by far the most expensive military in the world, and you want to spend MORE money on it? Howzabout spending a tiny fraction of that on peace instead?

      You must have missed the part about ships ramming into other ships and planes crashing because of inadequate training and maintenance. And since peace is a big part of the US military's role (keeping shipping lanes and airspace open, deterring aggression against weaker allies, providing aid in the wake of natural disasters and humanitarian crises except where politically inconvenient, etc.), spending money to improve readiness is spending on peace. Now, there's a valid question about how such an expensive military force could become so dangerously unprepared for action, but correcting the problem is going to cost money in any case.

    6. Re:And he's proud of what?? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Please keep in mind that roughly 50% of the American people disagree with you, many of them quite intelligent and thoughtful.

      Well, no. If they were intelligent and thoughtful, they could and would see how those things are harmful in literally every way.

      This attitude is the primary cause of the election of Donald Trump. Please think about that.

      Deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and excessive military spending are literally how Russia got where it is today. Make America Russian Again? At least when the Russians were the dominant white people in America all they were doing was trapping, and building a couple of forts.

      Wrong. Go read some history about how the current Russian oligarchies came about. It wasn't due to deregulation, tax cuts or military spending.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:And he's proud of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no. If they were intelligent and thoughtful, they could and would see how those things are harmful in literally every way.

      This attitude is the primary cause of the election of Donald Trump. Please think about that.

      If that's how it worked we'd have full Democratic control of the government as a result of 50+ years of Red Scare bullshit. Funny how the conservatives are the real snowflakes, huh?

    8. Re:And he's proud of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Please keep in mind that roughly 50% of the American people disagree with you, many of them quite intelligent and thoughtful."

      Actually far fewer than that "roughly 50%" of the American people likely disagree if you're talking about those who voted for Trump. He did not win the popular vote and only a sliver of people vote in the US anyway.

      And of those that did, I suspect many of them are far more racist than intelligent, and that's where most of their thoughtfulness goes.

      The majority is actually on one side here, and hint hint, it ain't with Trump. His minority however is the most united of the subgroups of people out there - given they all think roughly the same way. So it's easy to forget that they're not nearly as big as they like you to think they are.

    9. Re:And he's proud of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A more robust military? Hello, ours is already by far the most expensive military in the world, and you want to spend MORE money on it? Howzabout spending a tiny fraction of that on peace instead?

      Which is more peaceful?

      One massive-as-hell gorilla guarding/hoarding a ton of bananas; or
      A bunch of evenly matched gorillas fighting over the ton of bananas?

    10. Re:And he's proud of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"

    11. Re:And he's proud of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that Mr. Anonymous Coward (a different anonymous coward than this one) is a Republican, but each and every one of those 'accomplishments' is sheer stupidity.

      Please keep in mind that roughly 50% of the American people disagree with you, many of them quite intelligent and thoughtful. You may be right, but it's hardly as cut and dried as you paint it to be, as should be obvious given the large number of people on the other side of each of those questions.

      Where do you get this 50% number? Elections don’t count 100% of Americans, and even if they did, he didn’t win 50% of the vote. His latest disapproval rating is 60%. You are way off.

      Then there is percentage of the minority who support him who are proud deplorables in “fuck your feelings” t-shirts. Maybe they will be interested in your concern trolling?

    12. Re:And he's proud of what?? by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      If tax reform is such a giant giveaway why have federal revenues skyrocketed after Trump reduced taxes?

  14. THE PRESIDENT IS A MORONIC TRAITOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The person keeping Trump from making his administration WORSE than his ongoing TREASON is doing a hero's job, Kendall you're a cowardly faggot.

  15. Who is an Anonymous Coward? by careysb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "White House Says Anonymous 'Coward'..."

    So who's the Anonymous Coward that goes by the name "White House"?

    1. Re:Who is an Anonymous Coward? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "White House Says Anonymous 'Coward'..."

      So who's the Anonymous Coward that goes by the name "White House"?

      I told you to keep quiet.

      -- White house.

    2. Re:Who is an Anonymous Coward? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Office of the President routinely uses the Press Secretary to make controversial statements they don't want to be accountable for.

      It's a time dishonored tradition.

    3. Re:Who is an Anonymous Coward? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So who's the Anonymous Coward that goes by the name "White House"?

      I can't tell you, but his initials are "APK".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Who is an Anonymous Coward? by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      "White House Says Anonymous 'Coward'..."

      So who's the Anonymous Coward that goes by the name "White House"?

      Well it can't Trump since he weaselled out of service in Vietnam using 'bone spurs' as an excuse which makes Mr. Trump a very public coward.

    5. Re:Who is an Anonymous Coward? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly your only good post, ever.

    6. Re:Who is an Anonymous Coward? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me.

      It was me. I wrote it.

      There. Now I feel so much better. As usual my Op-Ed piece will get down-modded and it will get ignored.

      The BeauHD script is just intentionally stirring the pot again.

    7. Re:Who is an Anonymous Coward? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the author used any words to convey their gender. However, Sanders said "he" in her response to the article. What does she know?

  16. This proves one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donald is an idiot and being used as a puppet. But the bible-thumpers and puppet-masters are happy at least.

    1. Re:This proves one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald is an idiot and being used as a puppet. But the bible-thumpers and puppet-masters are happy at least.

      You forgot the other group of people who are happy :

      The very large group which is thankful that the raging evil CUNT Hillary is not president.

      Many of us didn't for FOR Trump as much as we voted AGAINST Hillary. YOu might not agree with us, but that's because you are a clueless cum-slurping worthless imbecile.

    2. Re: This proves one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Golf clap, this idiot actually is why the two party system is trash. How is that cum working out for you?

    3. Re: This proves one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What have you got against cum slurping?

  17. Does anyone get it? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few days before Bob Woodward book release (“Fear: Trump in the White House”), an "anonymous senior Trump official" writes op-ed on "resistance" within administration... saying basically that, "yes, Trump is bad and has his drawbacks but the White House is working well and delivers thanks to a competent team that supports the president". Meaning: Trump might be as bad as described in the book, but he still delivers, thus the book has no real value. Preemptive defense.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Does anyone get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few days before Bob Woodward book release (“Fear: Trump in the White House”), an "anonymous senior Trump official" writes op-ed on "resistance" within administration... saying basically that, "yes, Trump is bad and has his drawbacks but the White House is working well and delivers thanks to a competent team that supports the president". Meaning: Trump might be as bad as described in the book, but he still delivers, thus the book has no real value. Preemptive defense.

      What is puzzling is that that 'resistance' suddenly appears on the op-ed page, manned by a guy with foreign sounding last name , most probably of a Chinese origin, of "Dao",

      Think about it, folks !

      Can it be that there is no 'anonymous coward' at all?

      Could China be the elephant-in-the-room behind this op-ed saga??

    2. Re:Does anyone get it? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      You're right that this shouldn't be taken at face value. But what are you implying, that Trump would take an completely uncharacteristic action to sacrifice some of his reputation, on the gamble that it would never be revealed that he was responsible? To call himself into doubt because of a book, when he's shrugged off these sort of things in the past? Or that the editorial did come from someone on the inside or within the Republican camp, utilizing a strategy of controlled opposition as some form of preemptive damage control that may or may not even be effective, in the hopes of maintaining approval leading into the midterms?

      Both of which seem as likely as this player announcing this "resistance" to begin with in such dramatic fashion, purposefully undermining its own stated purpose. There's even more factors than just this book in play, which makes this editorial just a tad too convenient, all things considered.

      Besides, a little subterfuge is nothing to Trump's enemies, especially when it seems so well crafted to target where he's vulnerable.

  18. Definitely should resign by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    I think this person should definitely stand up, make their identity known, and resign their post. Seriously, enough of his flunkies have/will resign/ed -- couldn't you just claim credit for the op-ed while walking out the door? His staff could milk this for low-grade chuckles over the entire rest of his term.

    1. Re:Definitely should resign by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm uncertain here. It would normally seem to be the right thing to do, however in the present state of affairs it won't do anything. The senate will never vote to impeach, that's a pipe dream. Congress won't cooperate with any invocation of the 25th amendment, it will just be a bit of theater. So stepping up and resigning will not accomplish anything except to go and get a better job (not in politics, the political career will be over). And after resigning, Trump will just appoint someone else who's more compliant.

      So I can imagine that 'anonymous' does believe that more good can be done within the administration than from outside. However by writing this letter all it's likely to do is make Trump even more paranoid and more insistent that everyone swear personal loyalty (especially when he's already upset at so many former BFFs).

      We've already had plenty of senior officials resign and publicly claim how bad the president is, and this has not accomplished anything. Everyone who isn't a fan of Trump already knows he's a moron and incompetent, and everyone who is a fan refuses to believe it.

      Overall it might have been better if 'anonymous' just kept quiet.

    2. Re:Definitely should resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you don't know Trump. He'd threaten to sue the leaker, sue him, tell the FBI to arrest him (which they would refuse), tell the CIA to kidnap him (which they would delay), and so on and so forth.

    3. Re:Definitely should resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends - if that person stands to inherit the whole lodestar when Trump eventually does go down, then they might have enough incentive to stay in the job while stabbing him in the back.

    4. Re:Definitely should resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there...

  19. msnbc guy said it's DNI Dan Coats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But then he's been wrong before doing that sort of Sherlock stuff, and never talks about those.

  20. Needed: heroes by Chuck+Messenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you not hear what this person is saying? What dozens upon dozens of highly-knowledgeable people with decades of experience at the highest levels of government have been blaring from the rooftops, with ever-increasing urgency? Our current President - morally unfit, erratic, unstable, with a love for authoritarianism, and disdain for our Constitution - poses a grave danger to our Republic. To our freedom. We are in a full-blown constitutional crisis. People who value our democracy are fighting to save it. The United States, as a country, desperately needs more democracy-loving heroes like McCain.

    1. Re: Needed: heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as I see the words deep state, I stop reading, and think another deluded right wing asshole, then I yawn.
      Sad.

    2. Re:Needed: heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you not hear what this person is saying? What dozens upon dozens of highly-knowledgeable people with decades of experience at the highest levels of government have been blaring from the rooftops, with ever-increasing urgency? Our current President - morally unfit, erratic, unstable, with a love for authoritarianism, and disdain for our Constitution - poses a grave danger to our Republic. To our freedom. We are in a full-blown constitutional crisis. People who value our democracy are fighting to save it. The United States, as a country, desperately needs more democracy-loving heroes like McCain.

      Yes, and I heard exactly the same things about both Bushes, about Reagan, and (from looking at history) about Lincoln. For some reason, I have never heard such panicked responses about Democrats, even the ones who actively were promoting authoritarian models and insisting that the Constitution is too limiting and needs to be abolished so the government can grow beyond those petty limits.

      If, by some odd chance, they are serious, sincere, and honest this time, those idiots cried "wolf" far too many times when there was no danger and were silent with far too many actively dangerous politicians.

    3. Re:Needed: heroes by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      The United States, as a country, desperately needs more democracy-loving heroes like McCain.

      More war criminals like McCain? More cowards too afraid to come in and vote on health care like McCain? He claimed to have a spine and a conscience, but he ran away from every moral conflict.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Needed: heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classy. I'll admit I didn't like the Palin choice and I kind of think it opened the door for traitor Trump(hope his bone spurs are ok), but I have more respect for McCain's little finger than I do for trumps entire "administration".

  21. But POTUS said it's fake news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Pence, he's tired of waiting. #Lodestar

  22. Treason by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Working to undermine the POTUS in the White House.

    Subterfuge at best.

     

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    1. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, retarded. Treason is against the COUNTRY - what Trump did. When the president is acting against the interests of the country or a criminal, HE IS A TRAITOR.

    2. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If giving the president of the United States a bad name were treason, Trump would have been impeached long ago.

    3. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, whenever the word treason is mentioned Trump supporters are quick to claim that unless congress declares war against anonymous White House staffers it can't possibly be treason.

      I guess it requires some pretty liberal interpretation of the consitution:

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      The first part is pretty much limited to confederate separatists. You can't expect a non-US citizen at war with the US to be treasonous against the US. They can only be treasonous against their own country.

      The second part is a bit trickier. What if you didn't give support but charged money for it?
      I would like to think that taking money to betray the US would be considered treasonous.
      However, hotel owners typically gives aid and comfort to their customers. It seems unreasonable to held them accountable for their visitors actions.

    4. Re:Treason by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 2

      Never said that.

      It is simply being a spy and working covertly to undermine a sitting president in the White house.

      The CIA and FBI would normally be very very concerned, but they are busy chasing Russian phantoms...

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    5. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you make of those Republicans who refused to call President Obama president and instead called him resident, and a communist Muslim Kenyan traitor?

    6. Re:Treason by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

      Citizens.

      Not in actively working in the White House.

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  23. "...the president continues to act in a manner by Snufu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

    You don't get to decide that.

    Regardless of your opinion of Trump's policies, he is the democratically elected representative of the people of this nation. Sabotage from within by an unelected, anonymous staffer is the antithesis of a representational republic. If the president is a danger to the nation, present your evidence and plead your case for impeachment to the nation and to congress.

    On a related note this is a new low for the NY times. They seem determined to hasten the death of old media by burning any journalistic integrity they have left.

    1. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "You don't get to decide that."
      How do you know that? The president is not a king or dictator. There's lots of things the president can't decide on.

    2. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EC is the how we elect Presidents, but it is not democratic. It is one of a few measures implemented specifically to thwart democracy in this republic.

      Besides, these people swear an oath to the, Constiution, not the mob.

    3. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right, he doesn't get to decide that... but he's not deciding anything here.... he's making a comment based entirely on what has been observed so far. You are welcome to disagree, but he's as entitled to his view as you are to yours.

    4. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The president doesn't get to decide it but some rando appointee that not one person ever cast a ballot for does?

    5. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

      You don't get to decide that.

      Regardless of your opinion of Trump's policies, he is the democratically elected representative of the people of this nation. Sabotage from within by an unelected, anonymous staffer is the antithesis of a representational republic. If the president is a danger to the nation, present your evidence and plead your case for impeachment to the nation and to congress.

      On a related note this is a new low for the NY times. They seem determined to hasten the death of old media by burning any journalistic integrity they have left.

      If his staff have no discretion as they go about their jobs wtf do you think whitehouse staffers do every day, his laundry? Even then they could decide to wash the ugliest shirts last - for the country, for the presidency, out of respect for the man even - but in that order.

      BTW - elections have consequences, and this is the staff the President selected, so 8===D (d): that’s you with a d in your mouth.

    6. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On some things, yes.

    7. Re: "...the president continues to act in a manner by bestweasel · · Score: 0

      "There's lots of things the president can't decide on."

      "Blue crayon, red crayon, blue crayon, red crayon."

    8. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On a related note this is a new low for the NY times. They seem determined to hasten the death of old media by burning any journalistic integrity they have left.

      What the bleep has the NY Times done wrong here? Seems pretty relevant information to me, and I don't see any violation of journalistic integrity. You may not want to hear it, but that's your problem, not the NY Times' problem.

    9. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a related note this is a new low for the NY times. They seem determined to hasten the death of old media by burning any journalistic integrity they have left.

      What the bleep has the NY Times done wrong here? Seems pretty relevant information to me, and I don't see any violation of journalistic integrity. You may not want to hear it, but that's your problem, not the NY Times' problem.

      Conservative radio talk show hosts make their living by reporting the front page of the NYT and WaPo every day, and I get a big kick out of them continually announcing their demise. Even funnier when they pull figures they like from an infographic on the NYT and forget to mention the source.

    10. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

      You don't get to decide that.

      Yes, they do. We all get to decide that, because there are No Kings In America.

      Regardless of your opinion of Trump's policies, he is the democratically elected representative of the people of this nation.

      No, he is not. We do not democratically elect the president. We oligarchically select them. The electoral college allegedly exists to prevent mob rule, but every time it disagrees with the popular vote, we get a president who does not work within the law. This is how we know that it has another purpose — maintenance of the status quo. Well, that and that the founders actually told us so.

      If the president is a danger to the nation, present your evidence and plead your case for impeachment to the nation and to congress.

      Congress is already well aware of the case for impeachment, and if they were not wholly partisan, they would have begun impeachment proceedings already. Since they haven't, we know they are (we knew already, but it serves as confirmation) and going to congress would be a fat waste of time. In fact, it would be worse than a waste of time, since it would involve outing oneself.

      Government officials do not swear an oath to the president, but to the constitution. And the president is shitting directly upon that document.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has he done that isn't his right and authority as POTUS?

    12. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the person indicated that insiders are undermining the president. That is a decision, contrary to your "but he's not deciding anything here" comment.

    13. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      ...an unelected, anonymous staffer is the antithesis of a representational republic

      Trump was elected president. Trump selected his staff. Are you suggesting that Cabinet Secretaries and other high-level Executive staff should be elected instead of being appointed by the president?

    14. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the president is a danger to the nation, present your evidence and plead your case for impeachment to the nation and to congress.

      One can remain 100% within the law and still be a cancer.

    15. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      You don't believe that the people deserve to know what this anonymous staffer is doing? Regardless of his intentions or the rightness or wrongness of what he's doing you think the NY Times should hide this news? Shouldn't this be something that is debated and known about? How is this a "new low" for the NY Times? They're posting this story without any other editorial additions. You can decide if you think that what this staffer is doing is good or bad; isn't that the job of GOOD journalists? Their job is to present information for you to be informed. They're literally informing everyone about this open letter basically. I don't see how what the NY Times did is a bad thing unless you have a hatred for anything that doesn't spoon-feed you the rhetoric you'd like to hear.

      --
      -SaNo
    16. Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Undermining presidential authority is a decision, of course... but that's not what the post to which I responded said. Let me remind you of Snufu's post to which I had responded:

      "...that is detrimental to the health of our republic"

      You don't get to decide that.

      My point is that what they quoted and said that the person doesn't get to decide that wasn't actually any kind of decision at all, it was a belief.

      Now if they had actually meant to say that the person doesn't get to decide to *ACT* on such beliefs without going through the appropriate legal process, then they would most certainly be talking about a decision, but that's not what he wrote at that point... mention of actions came later in the comment, but at that point was not contextually relevant to the comment of "you don't get to decide that", where "that" appears to refer to the comment that was quoted, not what would end up appearing not before at least a couple of sentences into the following paragraph.

  24. Conspiracy theory, eh? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, if anyone had any doubts that the deep state exists, this should pretty much put an end to them. This attempt at circumventing the elected government is incredibly harmful. You want to know the endgame of this? Pakistan. Pakistan is run not by the elected government, but by its intelligence community. They take actions that are in their own interest, not in the interest of the country, and as a result Pakistan is a shithole and will never get any better.

    A better way to approach the problem might be to ask what does America's deep state think of you?

    Schweizer said, "Well, let me tell you, I would recommend everybody go out and get an academic book published last year called "What Washington Gets Wrong," and it's two scholars from Johns Hopkins University who do a massive survey of senior unelected executives in government, basically the deep state, and asks them a bunch of questions. And as the authors describe the deep state has contemptuous attitudes towards the average American."

    "They think they're far less educated than they actually are," he continued. "They think they are far more dependent than they actually are. They're arrogant, they believe, and say in the surveys if the American people want one thing, and they think it's wrong, they're going to push something else. There's a massive disconnect, and the deep state is real, and it's a threat to our republic form of government."

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30027384-what-washington-gets-wrong

    They would very much like the Pakistani model, where there is an elected figurehead, but they rule us. For our own good, of course.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if anyone had any doubts that the deep state exists, this should pretty much put an end to them

      Doofus, these are Trump appointees.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Go fuck your mother ivan

    3. Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So, if anyone had any doubts that the deep state exists, this should pretty much put an end to them.

      If this is evidence that the deep state exists, it's also evidence that Trump created it. This alleged person is one of his appointees.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous comes in many names. Too bad a real name cannot be confirmed to know who this is.

    5. Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shut the fuck up, stupid delusional paranoid trumptard. Nobody is trying to overthrow the governement. Nobody is questionning the legitimacy of all the other congressmen in the governement. What they are doing is exposing a con-man that scammed his way to the presidency by deceiving and lying to the people and committed treason by colluding with a foreign hostile nation. Listening to you, we should never have started the impeachement process against Richard "If the president does it, then it's not illegal" Nixon after the Watergate, because he was still the democratically elected president.

      And instead of asking what this alleged "deep state" thinks of you, why don't you ask what your beloved president thinks of you ?

      "I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone, and I still wouldn't lose any voters".

      That's what your beloved president thinks of you, asshole.

    6. Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      So, if anyone had any doubts that the deep state exists, this should pretty much put an end to them.

      Again, you show yourself to be the poseur that you are with comments like this. Do you have no knowledge or understanding of history? Do you not read history? From your comments you have shown yourself over and over to be a dilettante, another talk radio superhero who never gave a F$%^ about current events or history until the internet and talk radio made it easy for you to understand. Easy for you to see everything in black and white terms without any nuance.

      Deep State?
      There has been a deep state since the Pharaohs.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    7. Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's deeper than we thought! The call is coming from within the house!

    8. Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      has contemptuous attitudes towards the average American

      "They think they're far less educated than they actually are," he continued. "They think they are far more dependent than they actually are. They're arrogant, they believe, and say in the surveys if the American people want one thing, and they think it's wrong, they're going to push something else. There's a massive disconnect

      So leftists, then? I'm surprised deplorable wasn't in the description.

    9. Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Obama first appointed Darth Ajit Pai to the FCC. People make mistakes doofus. By their own account, this person is clearly acknowledging existence of and participation with the deep state, which has been suspected all along to cross party boundaries. Fortunately, they seem to be as much of morons as they claim Trump to be. What kind of idiot would advertise to everyone the fact that they have been engaging in covert activities. Even a total dumbass knows better than that.

  25. Try a new driver by tgibson · · Score: 1

    I've heard of this happening before. It's entirely likely that the kernel module isn't loaded. First, try:
    modinfo -v nytoped
    look that the dependencies contain the anonymity you're looking for. Assuming that the version number is correct, then you're all set! Just:
    modprob anon
    Best wishes!

    1. Re:Try a new driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if anyone had any doubts that the deep state exists, this should pretty much put an end to them

      Why do you think it must be some great conspiracy, as compared to, say, one person acting according to their own conscience?

  26. Totally agree by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Even though I responded it is a major failing of Slashdot the purely political pieces like this are put on the front page and poison the whole site.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  27. Staff undermining politicians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was done in the UK in the '80s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister

    1. Re:Staff undermining politicians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adapted for U.S. television with current run that started in Nov. 2016.

  28. Is there anyone *working* for Trump?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Given the number of Trump appointees that have resigned from Trump's government or been sacked, you wonder how many people actually work on Trump's agenda! These are people Trump chose, so its hardly some sort of Deep State conspiracy thing.

    "it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP "
    Again, these are people Trump appointed, who've turned on him, and they were Republicans through and through.

  29. Sincerely, Anonymous Coward by Snufu · · Score: 0

    If I had known I could get my anonymous coward rants printed in the NY Times Op-Ed section I wouldn't have been wasting all my shitposts here.

  30. It's the coward in the WH who should resign by jensend · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The man who licks Putin's boots and bullies the refugees, the Draft-Dodger-In-Chief, the man without the courage or fortitude to have any kind of consistent moral principles whatsoever, is a coward and should resign.

    As a Republican I say that not only the nation but also the party will be better off when he's stepped down (or been declared incompetent, or impeached, or assassinated, or voted out of office if he makes it the full four years).

    Trump contradicts himself rapidly, and other than 'towards incivility' one never knows what direction he'll be pointed tomorrow. So if people don't overturn the country to implement the latest rage tweet (only to have the opposite direction tweeted tomorrow), they're not really being unfaithful to their boss, much less being traitors to the nation. They're performing the vital service of helping steady the keel of the ship of state through this self-inflicted storm.

    1. Re:It's the coward in the WH who should resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn in your republican card. You just aren't stupid enough, or greedy enough, to be a republican.

    2. Re:It's the coward in the WH who should resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing he's one of those single issue Republicans who believes that the party's views on abortion or gun rights is the only thing that matters(*).

      In reality, Republican politicians are almost always pro-big-business / anti-average-citizen, and Democrat politicians are almost always pro-average-citizen / anti-big-business. Sure, there are individual Republican and Democrat politicians who stray from that characterization, but the proof is in the aggregate voting records. Also, if you look from that point of view, it's plain as day in every campaign speech they give (e.g. go re-watch the Clinton/Trump debates).

      * = Roe will never be overturned (even with a stacked court), because the justices are smart enough to know that it would result in a civil war. Similarly, the 2nd Amendment will never be nerfed for the same reason.

    3. Re:It's the coward in the WH who should resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason Trump has not been impeached is because Pence is way worse. They can (somewhat) manage the orange racist clown but when Pence gets in the office ... it seems s#it will get way worse.
      https://youtu.be/16jo7v1u_NI

    4. Re:It's the coward in the WH who should resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

    5. Re:It's the coward in the WH who should resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe jensend should be declared incompetent and assassinated.
      What say ye America?

      -------- YES!
      -------- NO

    6. Re:It's the coward in the WH who should resign by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      The media is going to make any GOP person (even an outsider in this case) as an imbecile.

      They did the same thing for Raegan, McCain, George W, Palin, and Romney. Among others.

      The economy is roaring according to many Democrats and voters don't care about caricatures on beltline snob-aganda.

  31. 37 people resigned/sacked from Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except this supposed 'deep state' Obama/Clinton conspiracy is by people APPOINTED BY TRUMP, who've turn on Trump.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/08/thirty-seven-administration-officials-whove-resigned-or-been-fired-under-trump/

    Republicans, chosen by Trump. Shallow state not deep state. 37 Republicans have turned on him so far and resigned or been sacked.

    But yeh, at the core of it is the vote. Americans didn't vote for him, and so they don't feel any need to go along with his random bullshit.

    1. Re:37 people resigned/sacked from Trump by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except this supposed 'deep state' Obama/Clinton conspiracy is by people APPOINTED BY TRUMP, who've turn on Trump.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/08/thirty-seven-administration-officials-whove-resigned-or-been-fired-under-trump/

      Republicans, chosen by Trump. Shallow state not deep state. 37 Republicans have turned on him so far and resigned or been sacked.

      But yeh, at the core of it is the vote. Americans didn't vote for him, and so they don't feel any need to go along with his random bullshit.

      If Trump really wants Hilary locked up, he should hire her.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:37 people resigned/sacked from Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans didn't vote for him, and so they don't feel any need to go along with his random bullshit.

      What reality are you from?

    3. Re:37 people resigned/sacked from Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. Americans didn't vote for him, and so they don't feel any need to go along with his random bullshit.

      Actually, they did. Fair and square. Even if you are thickheaded and misguided enough to only go by the so-called popular vote, which is honestly irrelevant in a representative republic, and toss the constitution in a paper shredder because it didn't yield the results you wanted this time around, it was still damn near half the voting populace that voted for him. Electorally, it was a landslide; popular vote-wise, it was not, it was actually still fairly close. 2 or 3 million out of 200 million registered voters is just a .5% to 1% difference at best.
      https://www.politico.com/story...
      I certainly didn't expect it but it's what happened, and maybe you ought to follow Hillary's advice before the election to accept the results; or be a happy hypocrite.

    4. Re:37 people resigned/sacked from Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump didn't get anywhere near 50%

      numbnuts

  32. You might want to lay off whatever it is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you're drinking and/or smoking. That's some next level crazy you've got going on right there. Like Alex Jones by way of too much Nyquil.

    Like I said, this is more than likely just a disgruntled staffer who didn't want to take the job and got pressured into it by their folks or something. Trump doesn't need anyone to sabotage his agenda. He can do bad all by himself.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You might want to lay off whatever it is by swb · · Score: 2

      Who is capable of getting appointed to a high enough level White House job to participate in whatever "resistance" this is and "gets pressured into it by their folks"?

      I think we're talking seasoned politicos in their 30s-40s-50s here, not 22 year olds who have to follow mom and dad's career advice.

    2. Re:You might want to lay off whatever it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the Times would risk their credibility by publishing this OP-ED as a "Senior Trump Administration Official" if they did not know exactly who wrote it.

  33. I don't mind the big ones by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    like Jones getting banned or when Trump won the election. Like I said, stuff that matters. But this? But then here I am commenting on it. To be fair I'm icing a sore muscle here and posting on /. works for that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  34. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by jmccusker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But they all take the following oath that has nothing to do with the Executive. “I, , do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” There is a distinct difference. They work for the federal government. They're not taking a loyalty oath to the POTUS.

  35. Trump supporter pro-dismantling of US democracy by UpnAtom · · Score: 2

    Shocked I tell you.

  36. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you also restrain people from aiding suicide attempts? THEY CHOSE IT!!!! I don't think there's a case that our country was terminally ill so destroying it was the right option.

  37. Something to remember about anonymous sources by Wizardess · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Please remember the Steele Dossier and it's vaguely cited anonymous sources. Please remember how accurate it has turned out to have been.

    The worth of an anonymous source is close to zero beyond maybe telling you where to look to dig for real information or maybe telling you where the misinformation lives as it distracts you from the real stuff. Off hand this pile on of anonymous sources has the ring of a Soviet Union misinformation propaganda campaign. "They say....", "They all say....", "A highly placed source says....", and its all lies.

    {^_^}

    1. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh it gets worse;

      https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/james-comey-trump-influence/

      Former FBI Director James Comey now believes that President Donald Trump was trying to influence his judgment about the Russia probe, a person familiar with his thinking says, but whether that influence amounts to obstruction of justice remains an open question.

      Relevant bit;

      a person familiar with his thinking says

    2. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please remember the Steele Dossier and it's vaguely cited anonymous sources. Please remember how accurate it has turned out to have been.

      The same dossier that even the nunes memo had to concede was accurate?

    3. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by multi+io · · Score: 0

      Please remember the Steele Dossier and it's vaguely cited anonymous sources. Please remember how accurate it has turned out to have been.

      So how accurate has it turned out to have been? Has it been disproven already?

    4. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything checked in the dossier has been shown to be provably false. Of course there is a filling of uncheck-able opinion libel put in to make the line limit.

    5. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far large portions of the Dossier have been corroborated, and no material facts have been disproven yet. Aside from some minor errors it has stood up remarkably well.

      dom

    6. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Please remember the Steele Dossier and it's vaguely cited anonymous sources. Please remember how accurate it has turned out to have been.

      Everything in it except one detail has already been proven true and cooperated, and the last detail could still be true, but we might never know?

      Are you making the argument anonymous sources are trustworthy due to how incredibly accurate that one Dossier turned out to be?

    7. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Steele Dossier has two broad categories of information: Confirmed and unproven. There's nothing in the "proven false" column yet.

    8. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that individual errors in the Steele Dossier render the whole thing false, or that it was intended to be a complete, finished intelligence report. It was not. Constructing any intelligence dossier from dozens of sources is going to have some errors, without making the whole thing worthless.

      Beyond that, you're conflating a narrative comprised of quotes from dozens of anonymous sources (many of whom have motivations to lie) with a single writer with little or no motivation to lie (beyond perhaps trying to defend themselves against accusations are complicity). No, the writer didn't allow his name to be published, but the New York Times didn't just receive an anonymous letter in the mail and publish it. By their own preface, they claim to know the writer's identity enough to say that they are in fact a current (not former with a grudge) senior (not mail room flunky making up stories to seem important) official in the White House (has personal experience, not just relaying gossip or stories they've heard). Woodward's book has many of the same problems as the Steele Dossier (many sources, many grudges, lots of hearsay), but this Op-Ed avoids the vast majority of them.

    9. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please remember the Steele Dossier and it's vaguely cited anonymous sources. Please remember how accurate it has turned out to have been.

      When Donald Trump cites 'people say' sources, one can be pretty sure his real source is the part of his body he sits on. However holding up the Steele Dossier as an example of how unreliable anonymous sources are is spectecularly clueless. A pretty substantial part of the Steele dossier can now be verified from public sources, and it has been proven to be correct in almost all details.

    10. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please remember the Steele Dossier and it's vaguely cited anonymous sources. Please remember how accurate it has turned out to have been.

      I'd say like 30 indictments and half a dozen guilty pleas falls into the pretty damn accurate category.

    11. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that second paragraph really veered off course.

    12. Re:Something to remember about anonymous sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What benefit is there by knowing their identity? The only one I can think of is so that they can be discredited through ad hominem attack. Who said what is not nearly as important as what is said, and what that guy said is fucking scary... that President Trump is unfit, yet despite this, his people were able to do some of the worst things an administration can do. The problem with removing President Trump from office is that what will replace him is worse, more effective, and more evil.

      This is a clusterfuck. I can't think of a think of anything that can be done short of full fledged revolution. But the people our Founders set up for us to count on for this, the 2nd Amendment people, got their shit ass-backwards, selfishly worried about crime and things rather than people and principles. If only the NRA had not brainwashed them into being paranoid children, if only they were given the change to understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, there might be a militia that could replace the government, that is, those at the top in the current government, hold Congress hostage and by forcing a new emergency election.

      The assault on the Constitution has been happening for some time:

      _Justice Scalia's majority opinion in the 2003 DC gun law case, gutting the 2nd Amendment

      _President Bush's administration gutting the principle of habeas corpus.

      _President Obama's administration gutting the 5th Amendment

      _The NSA gutting the 4th Amendment

      _Some douchebag and some gun company testing the 1st Amendment, and the reaction to this effectively gutting the Amendment

      I can't tell if these Constitutional attacks are organized or not (something like continuing Cold War agenda) but at least with the current problems, there should only be a few years left before the current administration is replaced, and this should all swing from the extreme nutty right back to center for a double-term Democratic administration.

      Please, for the love of God, vote for your economic interests, and fucking ignore everything else (the 2nd Amendment will not be repealed, ever, no one will take your guns, it is a non-issue; Rowe vs Wade will not be overturned, that battle is lost or won depending on how you feel about it, but regardless, it is over, stop fighting it, the moral choice is and should be the woman it affects, not yours). If the voter would only see one issue, that is personal economic intererests, what is happening could never happen again... and the way it happened now is the rich fooled the sentimental poor. Fuck all and vote in personal economic interests and nothing else.

  38. Wonder why... by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You'd think he was worried about someone trying to fire him, throw him in jail, getting executed or something...
    Trump took it with stride and didn't rant about it make threats right?
    He did?
    I guess there's a valid reason that person decided to be an A.C. in this situation.

  39. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the person in question is acting against what the populace said they wanted from the executive branch in the voting booth.

    didn't Trump lose the popular vote?

  40. Re:Yes, they should [resign] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit. Either get out and berate them publicly, or work for the interests of who you are working for.

    There is a bozotivity threshold once exceeded whereby that rule is out the window.

  41. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually do not believe Trumps claims they are a traitor...

    What?!? SuperKendall? NO!

    ... to be far wrong.

    Ah! Order is restored in the universe. I thought there for a second I had entered Bizzaro World.

  42. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the "popular" vote isn't a thing, just a point of attack. The election rules don't work in that way.

    Have you tabled an amendment to change elections to "the popular vote"?

  43. Hot Take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump himself is the anonymous source, he is creating this narrative about subversive elements in his administration in order to give himself an excuse to purge the old guard GOP establishment from it's ranks.

  44. If I did this to my employer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am pretty sure they would sue the crap out of me.

    And I would be in the wrong, and lose.

  45. not anonymous for long by albeit+unknown · · Score: 2

    Pattern-matching/machine learning algorithms will be used to compare the writing style and vocabulary in the article against the large sample of communications records available in the White House. The author will be found quickly.

    1. Re:not anonymous for long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that, as the article is probably just the fanciful rant of a failing NYT staff writer whose only goal is to perpetuate the drama and distract from the bad press the failing NYT gets in the Woodward book, which has to have them ticked.

    2. Re:not anonymous for long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plot twist, that same algorithm was used to craft the leak so as to backstab and get a rival removed.

    3. Re:not anonymous for long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all writing styles are as distinct as Trump's.

      Captcha: failed

  46. The most ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... batshit crazy thing I have ever seen ...

  47. Anonymous opinions are news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A opinion piece from an unknown anonymous person is now new? The IQ of the "respected" media really has dropped in last thirty years...

  48. She got it right by dromgodis · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that the press secretary got it right:

    the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign," she added.

  49. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually do not believe Trumps claims they are a traitor to be far wrong.

    'Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.'

  50. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    The real employer is the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

    That is not true. Not generally and not specifically. President Trump does not sign the checks of his senior officials. Since the Carter Administration, White House senior officials, including cabinet secretaries are paid under a system separate from the GS system, because the pay of a GS-15 was considered insufficient for someone of the stature of a cabinet secretary who had been a CEO. And later, the "Senior Executive Staff" designation was also considered insufficient, so exemptions were created. But the pay structure and the way they get paid is the same, as is their employer, the United States Government. And their pay is set by the same civil service laws and under the same US code as senate staffers and Supreme Court Justices and postal employees.

    And by the way, no cabinet secretary or head of an armed or intelligence agency can make more than the Vice-President, by law.

    In case your interested, here are the salaries of non-cabinet staff from 2017. It is amazing how few of these people are still there.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer...

    And here are salaries of cabinet secretaries on down.

    https://work.chron.com/much-mo...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  51. Re: Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No popular vote! No popular vote! You're the popular vote!

  52. The Black Hole of Self-Awareness by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05, 2018 @08:46PM (#57261402)

    "The anonymous guy is the worst kind of scum."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:The Black Hole of Self-Awareness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for bringing a little more reddit to slashdot.

    2. Re:The Black Hole of Self-Awareness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05, 2018 @08:46PM (#57261402)

      "The anonymous guy is the worst kind of scum."

      You understand now that we, Anonymous Cowards, are the silent keepers of Liberty, don't you?

    3. Re:The Black Hole of Self-Awareness by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      You understand now that we, Anonymous Cowards, are the silent keepers of Liberty, don't you?

      We must have different definitions of the word "silent".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:The Black Hole of Self-Awareness by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      That's because we can read silently. Try it, might cut down on coworker complaints in the cube farm.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:The Black Hole of Self-Awareness by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's because we can read silently.

      Some of us make a smacking sound as we move our lips when we read. I don't want to point any fingers, but they wear red baseball caps made in China.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:The Black Hole of Self-Awareness by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      At least your neighbors don't have to listen to you sounding out multisyllabic words. Better.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  53. This Person Might Have Saved Lives by BrendaEM · · Score: 0

    Trump is at least a sociopath. We do not know what the people around him might have saved the world from.

    Trump'ism is over.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:This Person Might Have Saved Lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The leaker has done good - Trump can't win.
      He will have to work harder and longer in case someone is hiding something from him
      He will have a 1 in 12 chance of guessing the culprit, and any wrong 2nd or 3rd guesses will undermine his own good guys.Or he can follow the script and be better in all ways. At least he ws not called a bull in a China shop - yet.

    2. Re:This Person Might Have Saved Lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is at least a sociopath. We do not know what the people around him might have saved the world from.

      They certainly didn't save the world from fixed point fonts.

  54. What if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if Trump is the source and he's working against himself?

  55. I am Anonymous 'Coward' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is I, Anonymous Coward. I wrote the OpEd :)

  56. Yes, I do agree by zaraumar191 · · Score: 1

    Working for an employer you always attempt to weaken is straight up bunk. The employer is the US authorities, not the president. Federal employees take an swearing to support and fight the establishment.

  57. What's this story doing here? by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What's it got to do with tech? Please don't tell me that even /. is now reduced to posting clickbait?

    1. Re:What's this story doing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here...

      captcha: absolve

    2. Re:What's this story doing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't.

      However, certain topics generate a TON of replies ( namely Guns and Politics ) which generates a TON of page views / visits for Slashdot in general.

      Can you guess why these topics are included ?

  58. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The President isn't the executive branch. The Office of the President is. There's a well structured succession plan as who can fill that office. You can be loyal to the office but disloyal to a specific person filling it in certain narrow circumstances.

    We are in an unusual situation in so far as the person voted in may also be at times a domestic enemy of the United States (at least at times when they go off the rails).

    Having said that - the argument put forward in the Op-Ed is arguably flawed as its self serving - if they were really loyal to the office, they'd resign & lobby for impeachment to congress or initiate 25th amendment action (if they were in cabinet). Pence would end up as President , in theory preserving the Republican agenda. If Pence was enmired in the Mueller probe, then its Ryan, again, republican agenda preserved.

    So...

    Either:

    a) They feel that Trump being formally removed by either of those mechanisms would mean a 2020 disaster for the Republican party, and whomever replaces Trump will be a Gerald Ford. Therefore having Trump resign or fail at the 2020 nomination is there preferred outcome for preserving their policy agenda.

    OR

    b) They are running a niche agenda that Pence or Ryan wouldn't support, and need to prevent either of them holding the office.

    In no particular order my guesses are (If we take things at face value, its not Pence as he can't be sacked by the President):

    Mnuchin
    Conway
    Miller
    Sessions

  59. More likely a NYT ghost writer with a buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some low-level drone working in some basement of the Agriculture Department on cow fart measurement agreed to be the "source" for an article written by the failing NYT editorial writer who shows it to him and gets a "sure, I'll go along with that". So, basically wishful thinking and not truth.

  60. Regardless by rkordmaa · · Score: 0

    True, false, right or wrong, regardless the situation is FUBAR, Trump has been very busy making enemies and failed to make any friends. It's clear now, how much instability his courses of action have sowed. He has precious little credibility and support left, I'd be surprised if he makes it to end of term if he continues in this manner.

  61. Insubordination is always a valid cause to fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So identify and remove. Trump never had the benefit of a huge political organization behind him and has had to fill in with personnel who at least publicly were not already opposed to him. With the 16 Republican wannabes it didn't leave many undeclared bodies to choose from, leading to fiascos like Manafort and Sessions. By the time of his re-election in 2020 maybe Congress will have approved his current set of appointments. They seem to be happy leaving things in the hands of the Deep State.

  62. what a load of leftist BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wonder if they would do that with every other president,

    I'm sick and tired of these todlers making big money while not doing what they should. They seem to think they get payed to be sabotaging terrorists.

    Aren't democrats supposed to support what the people voted for ??? Because there are no real democrats, it's all lefties who will do like toddlers to get whatever it is they want. Fuck all the rest, that is what these people are about.

    They should be jailed or killed for all i care. They are the proverbial demons who will destroy everything they want , whatever stands in their way of becomming the next tyranical dictators. Kill them before they destroy all of humanity.

    1. Re:what a load of leftist BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment makes no sense. We're talking about a guy who is working for Trump and was appointed by Trump, and who, according to his own words, supports Trump's policies.

  63. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    help me God. Sigh. What's wrong with you guys?

  64. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >So help me God.

    But they ask help to Trump!

  65. Re:Says who? by butzwonker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When in public Trump does not speak like someone who has all of the issues his mortal enemies wish to claim he does.

    To a normal, unbiased observer he clearly does have these issues. That's the problem. It started very early with his childish and disgraceful inauguration crowd size rants and has continued since then.

    Republicans amongst themselves merely seem to disagree about the extent of this erratic behavior and how much it hinders the functioning of the government. Some think it's harmless and just another governance style, others think its a problem because he's acting too impulsively and refuses to listen to reason.

  66. To be fair, there is no Republican Party ... by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only thing he validated is the utter stupidity of our president. Anyone that votes for the GOP based on this is a fool, and yes the GOP is populated by fools. Anyone else will flee the Republican Party.

    "There is no Republican Party. There's a Trump party. The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere."

    -- John Boehner

  67. Re: Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There hasn't been a president elected by popular vote for decades because a lot of Americans don't vote. In fact, so many nowadays that even a unanimous vote may soon be unpopular.

    So stop with that bullshit.

  68. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God is an universal excuse. It is convenient.

  69. Get your act together? by Freischutz · · Score: 2

    Note that less than half of the GOP voted for Trump in the primaries - even though by the time of the later primaries most of the other candidates had bowed out.

    There are plenty of Republicans who didn't want this President, and painting all of us with that brush is just as foolish as the prejudiced tweets from the Blowhard-In-Chief.

    Then get your act together, reclaim your party. Reform your primaries so you candidates can make unpopular but necessary decisions while in office without having to fear being primaried by a nut bag pervert like Roy Moore in the following election cycle. Then try to work together with your opponents in congress to end the tribalism and trench warfare in the US. You need to take your congress back to an earlier age when Democrats and Republicans could cooperate and compromise on sensible legislation that most American voters could live with. Until both the Dems. and the Reps, realise that the tribalism and 'my way or the highway' politics have reached the end of their lifespan the US will remain a basket case and an international laughing stock.

    1. Re:Get your act together? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Until both the Dems. and the Reps, realise that the tribalism and 'my way or the highway' politics have reached the end of their lifespan the US will remain a basket case and an international laughing stock.

      I want you to look back on the Obama administration, especially the first two years, and cram your equivocation up both sides of your ass. Obama bent over backwards to reach out to the Republicans and he got nothing but scorn, hatred, and obstruction.

    2. Re: Get your act together? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, he didn't need to. Had house and Senate and still kowtowed, and what did this civility buy us? Trump.
      He should have put those wall street fucks up against the wall, should have socialized medicine, should have raised taxes on the rich, should have closed gitmo, should have pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

  70. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    against all enemies, foreign and domestic

    I'd say it's their damned duty to resist.

  71. It gets ironic if you merge the statements by Kjella · · Score: 2

    That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting [the duly elected President of the United States] more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

    Is this one of those "we have to take away your freedom to protect it" kind of deals? Unless somebody would like to accuse Trump of election fraud he is the product of those democratic institutions. And I'm sure you can accuse him of a lot of things, but trying to dismantle democracy and install himself as supreme leader is not one of them. Raise your hand if you think Trump is not going to peacefully pass the presidency to the next duly elected president or try to dismantle Congress or the Supreme Court.

    It basically comes down to "my boss is making stupid and wrong decisions". We've all been there. We've all wondered "god, who made this guy boss". And we've probably all not 100% followed up on every decision and instruction we've gotten from above. And when I do I can usually justify it by saying I'm the one down in the trenches, I know what we really need. But I am de facto replacing "popular rule" with "expert rule", I know what's really best for you. Maybe he's doing it for the country, but he's not doing it for democracy because you can't do that by undermining it.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:It gets ironic if you merge the statements by N1AK · · Score: 2

      Raise your hand if you think Trump is not going to peacefully pass the presidency to the next duly elected president or try to dismantle Congress or the Supreme Court.

      Fortunately he isn't competent enough and doesn't appear to have the influence and time to manage something like that in one term. Does he strike me as the sort of person who would do that if he could and was motivated to do so? Genuinely, I absolutely believe he would. Trump doesn't care about anything beyond blind loyalty to Trump.

    2. Re:It gets ironic if you merge the statements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Election fraud in the democratic primary against Sanders and for Hillary got us into this mess. Sanders beat trump by a mile in every poll and roughly 14% of Sanders supporters voted for trump because of how terrible Hillary was. Hillary bought up all the DCCC debt and owned the DNC and voted herself in. This was as much admitted in the flordia lawsuit, and clearly shown in the leaked emails which, regardless of how they were leaked, are real.

    3. Re:It gets ironic if you merge the statements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raise your hand if you think Trump is not going to peacefully pass the presidency to the next duly elected president or try to dismantle Congress or the Supreme Court

      USGS just sent an alert to my phone.

    4. Re:It gets ironic if you merge the statements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Maybe he's doing it for the country, but he's not doing it for democracy because you can't do that by undermining it.

      The easy counter-example is Republicans mandating gerrymandering. If the staffer dismantled that institution then they would be supporting democracy. Not that they could nor that Drumpf would even care about such a low-level detail...

    5. Re:It gets ironic if you merge the statements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... trying to dismantle democracy and install himself as supreme leader is not one of them."

      And yet Big Giant Orange Head has mused publicly about becoming President For Life.

      "...Trump is not going to peacefully pass the presidency to the next duly elected president..."

      If Big Giant Orange Head runs and loses in 2020, he's going to wail like the big baby he is. He'll claim the election was rigged, stolen from him, Deep State, or Obama, or PizzaGate Pedophiles. Anything to avoid his own culpability. Which, I must point out, are exactly the same sorts of allegations he made in 2016 that turned out to be lies.

      I quite frankly, don't know if there's anything that "Trump would never do." Have a prostitute pee on him (allegedly)? Check. Attack military veterans while he dodged the draft? Check. Assert that he is above the law? Check. Fawn over dictators? Check.

      That leaves a very short list of what he might never do:

      1). Eat celery (or anything else healthy);
      2). Work a full week;
      3). Be faithful to his Wife Of This Decade;
      4). Admit he made a mistake and it was 100% on him;
      5). Go to church and mean any of it;
      6). Show humility.

    6. Re:It gets ironic if you merge the statements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about the same Trump who said there will be riots in the streets if he loses the "rigged" election?

  72. No naming of names? by shanen · · Score: 1

    I would have modded it "interesting", not "insightful", but I never get a mod point anyway.

    However what is amazing me is the lack of names here. I saw a couple of discussions going all over the place on the suspects. Originally I was convinced it was General Kelly, but now I think it is Conway trying to frame Kelly and get rid of him. Of course she's also playing the editors of the NY Times for suckers. In addition, she's surely working with Bannon on this project, which helps explain the motive. Bannon has wanted revenge on Kelly ever since he was punted out of the White House. I bet the two of the are already working on the fools at Faux and Friends to get them to pronounce Kelly guilty where Trump will see it.

    Whether Kelly did it or is being framed, I bet he'll be gone within a week.

    The "lodestar" was added just to confuse the issue some more. Wheels of lies within wheels.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  73. They're looking at the wrong coward by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The coward that needs to resign is Trump himself. He has been consistently working to undermine our actual democracy. Whether it has been through intent or ignorance is of no importance; he has disgraced the office and committed numerous criminal offenses. It is a shame that the critters in congress lack the collective spine to remove him through the prescribed legal mechanisms.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:They're looking at the wrong coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, the american people itself has completely lost it. Forcibly remove Trump from office, even through the totally legit and legal process, and you will trigger at best social unrest, assassination attempts, terrorist attacks and violent demonstrations with many deaths, and at worst, civil war.

      Meanwhile, the ennemies of the U.S., those who have been fueling division, extremism and hate, are gloating. This is the new way of waging war. Forget missiles, drones and nuclear weapons. Poison the nation from inside, and watch it slowly tear itself apart and plummit into anarchy and chaos.

    2. Re:They're looking at the wrong coward by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Forcibly remove Trump from office, even through the totally legit and legal process, and you will trigger at best social unrest, assassination attempts, terrorist attacks and violent demonstrations with many deaths, and at worst, civil war.

      What you describe seems like a choice between two terrible outcomes then. Let Trump destroy the country or destroy it by removing him. I will counter with the notion that the people who put him in power consist of a few different factions:

      • GOP faithful who would vote for anyone with an (R) after their name
      • People who deeply hated Clinton and all things Clinton and would vote for anyone who is running against anyone named Clinton
      • People who honestly felt like the system didn't care about them and voted him in as a way to attack the system

      Now between those two groups the first two wouldn't really be that offended by removing Trump as they would still have Pence in the White House. They could then begin rebuilding their party in his image.

      The third group would be the ones who would gather torches and riot. We saw them at Charlottesville and other places. However there really aren't that many of them across the country and how attached they really are to Trump is questionable. Would they really opt for violence? Maybe but that's hard to predict.

      As to whether or not civil war would be an outcome - or even the worst outcome - is debatable. At this point we may have already gone beyond a repairable union of states, it may be time to cut bait. The conservatives can let their experiment run its course in the south while the north proceeds towards modern society. It is possible to fracture our nation peacefully and it might be the best way to give the people what they want. 30 years later the southern states will beg the northern states for a bailout and then repairs can begin.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:They're looking at the wrong coward by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I'll add that Trump is not intelligent enough to recognize the damage he is doing to the country. He may well go down as the last president of the 50 states, and he would likely take that as a compliment. President Camacho was at least intelligent enough to ask for help from people smarter than himself, while Trump fires people who openly disagree with him.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  74. I made it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't even work for the government.

    I did it to prove fake news.

    AC

  75. Welcome Back to DrugeDot 2018 by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    Reputable news sources (the ones that Trump calls the "enemy of the American people") covered the story itself. Here on DrudgeDot, where protecting the GOP is more important than truth or reality, the white house response was covered instead. We have a maniacal idiot in the White House who has the power to bring us to our own destruction. Trump should have been removed from the White House some time ago, we'll be lucky if we survive 4 years of his administration with our 50 states intact.

    But no, slashdot instead wants us to know that the White House wants the whistleblower out. Because responsibility is not in fashion anymore.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  76. News for Nerds? Stuff that Matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without a name, this op-ed is a work of fiction. Anyone could have written it to serve a political end. Unless someone stands up and takes responsibility for it, it's bullshit.

  77. Oh yeah? by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

    Well I say the Anonymous Coward who's been posting here on Slashdot all these years should publicly resign!

  78. Trolling the troll.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now the administration will spin it's wheels looking for the dissenter.

  79. motivations and gullibility by ooloorie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The op-ed says:

    There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

    If this were true, why publish the op-ed, something that will make such activities much harder in the future? What could a self-proclaimed member of the "quiet resistance within the administration" possibly hope to accomplish by publishing this memo?

    And what evidence is there that this is real? All we have is the NYT's word for it, and they have made numerous, serious mistakes in recent years.

    1. Re:motivations and gullibility by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      You can tell from the WH reaction that it is real, or at least close enough to truth that they think it is. They'll figure out who eventually. Publishing the memo is setting the narrative to support removal of the President after the midterms and the anticipated DoJ massacre.

    2. Re:motivations and gullibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clearly you don't understand how DC works. This is how the GOP is preparing to impeach donald. When the GOP and power players feel it's time to cut the snakes head off, they will use his tweets and the mountain of evidence. This memo is clearly a power play to force donald to do what they want. They're putting pressure on donald and attempting to squeeeze him. Sad thing is, you can't really squeeze an unhinged crazy donkey.

    3. Re:motivations and gullibility by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      You can tell from the WH reaction that it is real, or at least close enough to truth that they think it is.

      The memo may be "real" in the sense that it may have been written by someone in the federal government (rather than being completely fabricated by the NYT). That someone may also be a Republican. And they may be using their position to sabotage executive actions. None of those would be news: there are plenty of Republicans and plenty of federal employees who hate Trump. However, there is no reason to believe that the person who wrote it has any special insights about the things they write about. I mean, the memo could be written by Bruce Ohr for all we know.

    4. Re:motivations and gullibility by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Open your mouth, I have to take a piss.

    5. Re:motivations and gullibility by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      It's purpose is to build a narrative to replace Trump if the GOP establishment decides it is in their interest. If they got behind the investigations, started some more of their own, how long would stuff like Trump Org's financials stand up to scrutiny? If the insiders are worried that Pence would go down, too, they'll try to make a move before the Speakership flips D in January, although that's getting a little too 'made for TV', even for this admin.

    6. Re:motivations and gullibility by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      And what evidence is there that this is real?

      A reasonable question, and it deserves a reasonable answer, so here it is: Bob Woodward's book comes out on Tuesday, and it contains hundreds of hours of carefully transcribed conversations with dozens of White House aides, all saying roughly the same thing that this op-ed is saying, and worse. Trump, of course, will do his usual "fake news" act and try to turn yet another mountain of evidence against him into a "he said, she said" scenario, but that gambit doesn't work when your opponent has all the audio tapes.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:motivations and gullibility by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      A reasonable question, and it deserves a reasonable answer, so here it is: Bob Woodward's book comes out on Tuesday, and it contains hundreds of hours of carefully transcribed conversations with dozens of White House aides, all saying roughly the same thing that this op-ed is saying

      The question isn't whether the statements about how the WH is run are accurate, the question is whether the claims about the authorship of the op-ed are true.

      As for what Woodward says about the WH, so what? I like small government. A WH that's ineffective and chaotic sounds good to me, certainly better than the creepy authoritarians that Bob Woodward and the WaPo favor for the WH.

    8. Re:motivations and gullibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, hun, I'm not into kinky stuff with girls.

    9. Re:motivations and gullibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And corrected those mistakes. Mistakes are part of life, but they are not trying to mislead unlike a few news oriented publications and sites.

    10. Re:motivations and gullibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name those 'numerous, serious mistakes', or admit you're just making it up.

    11. Re:motivations and gullibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All we have is the NYT's word for it, and they have made numerous, serious mistakes in recent years.

      The reason I take their word is because when said mistakes happen (and they do because mistakes happen), they acknowledge and correct them. Personally I think that is more trustworthy than shoveling bullshit and then taking 10 more steaming shits on it when you get called*.

      *One of hundreds of examples: Whatever happened to those 3-5 million illegal voters that trump has evidence on now that hes run the justice dept and had the power to arrest them for almost 2 years?

    12. Re:motivations and gullibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "NY Times Op Ed piece", isn't that redundant?

    13. Re:motivations and gullibility by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      I had to scroll down this far to finally find someone who demonstrates the proper amount of skepticism. Thank you, I was beginning to get seriously worried.

      We're in the months leading up to a midterm election no less, with future supreme court nominations on the horizon. At this point even outright sabotage by the opposition isn't an outcome I'd be surprised by.

  80. Proof that Mueller has nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This latest controversy is proof that Mueller has nothing. Many people were relying on Mueller to release a report by labor day and put in motion the removal of Trump. I am sure the Woodward book release was timed to add flames to the fire of the Mueller report. Oops no Mueller report now we have a book that is 100% hearsay with nothing to back it up. So NYT releases a hearsay op-ed that backs up the book. The op-ed reads like a caricature of how someone with TDS assumes the administration works. I don't buy it.

  81. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really sure why this is news? I think for myself anyway the ends justify the means. We have a stronger economy, good job reports, and low unemployment. I'm sure the story has some sort of truth behind it, but for this to even be remotely important it would be appropriate to know who is making these claims, and how close they are to the President. Even then, does it matter the means if the results are positive? Pretty sure most know by now that President Trump is a character and is a off the cuff sort of person.

  82. It isn't a person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is fake propaganda news, dreamt up by the far-left as an attack. They are getting desperate. The far-left will keep up this propaganda as long as they can.

    If this was a real story and the ANONYMOUS was truly standing up for the country, he would put his name on it. I know I would. My dad was a true journalist and he told both sides of the story. Remember that, because he would say if you are only telling one side of the story all it is, is propaganda.

    Nathan

  83. Duty to Country Duty to President by sjbe · · Score: 1

    If you think the President is unable to carry out his responsibilities, you have a duty to bring about impeachment and/or invoke the 25th Amendment.

    Only very specific people have the power to impeach the president or invoke the 25th amendment. Furthermore it requires a rare consensus among those very specific people. Everyone has to use other tactics available to them most other times. There is NO difference between a member of the administration opposing a president they disagree with versus a member of congress in the opposition party. Government workers have certain legal obligations but among them is not and never has been blind obedience to the president. This is true for EVERY citizen including you and me. This is not a monarchy and Trump is not the king.

    Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.

    Are you really so naive as to think this doesn't happen in literally every administration? There is nothing illegal or uncommon about this. First off, where exactly in the constitution does it say something about this? The constitution says nothing about it being illegal to oppose the president while working in the executive branch. Second, falling on your sword publicly is a pointless act of martyrdom that will get nothing accomplished and counter productively facilitates exactly what is being opposed. Opposing elected officials who have failed their office is a DUTY of every citizen and being a government official does not change that. Third, it isn't even remotely cowardly - quite the opposite actually. There is quite a lot of personal risk here in speaking truth to power publicly, particularly when the person in charge is a narcissistic megalomaniac. Anonymity is a useful tool and if you think professionalism is defined by falling on your sword then you on't know what professionalism actually is.

  84. Not the "deep state" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A manifesto of a conspiracy of deep-state moles in the White House...

    Calling it "deep-state" is somewhat inaccurate here. I'm not going to go with the op-ed author's sunny sounding "steady state", but "deep-state" specifically refers to the idea that career civil and military folks who predate the administration are running a shadow government. Taking the Times at their word, this guy is almost certainly a political appointee (the other option being the vice president), given they're identified as "a senior official in the Trump administration" (mentioning that their job would be in jeopardy tends to rule out the vice president, since he can't be fired by anything shy of impeachment or being replaced as running mate in the 2020 election).

    Point is, since the author is (almost certainly) a political appointee (not civil service), who came in with the current administration (doesn't predate), it's not a "deep-state" scenario. "Shadow government" would be more accurate, given the author and his allies are intentionally running the gov't in ways not sanctioned by the Constitution, with no oversight, voter approval, etc., and "shadow government" doesn't require the extra qualifiers that describing it as the "deep-state" implies.

    1. Re:Not the "deep state" by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      ... "deep-state" specifically refers to the idea that career civil and military folks who predate the administration are running a shadow government.

      My understanding of the term is that it also includes entrenched career politicians and party functionaries - from which he had to make some picks in order to get enough support from the power structure of his party to get them confirmed and his legislation through.

      That in includes elected officials who, in principle, could be bounced by the voters on the next cycle, but in practice have hacked the rules until that almost never happens. It also includes the power structure of the party, where the controlling factions hacked the rules (mainly in response to Ron Paul and the Tea Party - and quite publicly - on the R side, with "Superdelegates" and other macinations on the D) to block grass roots challenges and ouster. Then there's the permanent floating crowd of policy wonks and other power mongers, without permanent positions but with connections, leverage, and reputation as "go-to"s when something needs to be done.

      But as you say we're discussing a difference in definition. I agree that by the version you're using your assertion is correct.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  85. hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I love the uneducated" ... I used to think this country was one of the advanced intelligent ones until Trump enlightened me. I had a inferiority complex before this current president and now i feel great!! Thanks Trump!

  86. Won't happen by sjbe · · Score: 1

    This also means that invoking the 25th amendment will backfire. After invoking that amendment, congress takes over.

    The outcome of which depends on the composition of the cabinet and congress at the time. After the upcoming election the political calculus could become quite different than it is currently. I see zero chance of a Trump cabinet invoking the 25th given that they haven't already.

    And that this point in time with elections upcoming, they will all loudly shout "I still love Trump so please vote for me!!" after which the VP and majority of the cabinet will quickly find themselves out of a job.

    The Vice President cannot be fired from his job by the President. Only Congress can remove the VP from office via impeachment. The president has no power to remove elected officials from office. In any case it is a moot issue since there is zero chance of the 25th amendment being invoked by a Trump cabinet. Impeachment is FAR more likely if the democrats win a large majority this coming November.

  87. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh you want to talk about the EU and the automatic copyright filters they want installed?

  88. Fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    White House Says 'Coward' Subject of the New York Times Op-Ed Should Resign

  89. Re: Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would definitely try to restrain someone who was trying to commit suicide by driving the car into oncoming traffic on the highway, or trying to suicide by plane crash while I was on the plane.

    Some people just realize we are on the same ship and don't want to see it run aground.

  90. Saving the world from Crazy Lefties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump and anyone who loves the country is working to stop the deep state and every crazy SJW out there.

    Everyone loved trump until he bumped the establishment and took on the deep-state. Suddenly, the slow motion coup was initiated.

  91. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be amazing if the author is Ivanka or Jared?

    This really has been both the shittiest and best reality TV show.

  92. must be a slashdoter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but there are so many Anonymous Coward here ! :-/

  93. Trump LOVES this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the talk about Trump being angry about this is just more showmanship of the reality TV kind. Trump loves and uses this sort of thing for distraction... all eyes on him, don't worry about that rough and tumble supreme court nomination going on over there in that relatively boring committee hearing. I mean it is the most out of control committee hearing for a supreme court nominee ever, but it is nothing compared to an anonymous source within the White House dishing on the president and a new book. Come on folks the New York Times is being played like a fiddle to Donald Trump's tune. Trump might be a mad A hole, but he is also a genius at this game.

  94. Game of Thrones - Kingslayer by Eldaar · · Score: 1

    This brings to mind Jamie Lanister from Game of Thrones, known as the Kingslayer because he was a member of the kingsguard and yet he killed the king. Although he was the rightful king, he was also known as the mad king because he was insane and commanded his men to kill people recklessly. When asked what the king said as Jamie stabbed him in the back he replied, "The same thing he'd been saying for hours, "burn them all!""

    Although many people questioned how a member of the kingsguard could kill the "rightful" king and consider it just, Jamie indicated that the man was literally insane and was intent on mindlessly killing lots of innocent people.

    While Trump is not literally saying, "burn them all!," we are hearing from high-level people in the White House that he wanted to assassinate the leader of Syria, that he has little knowledge of or concern about war on the Korean peninsula, and generally isn't intellectually up to considering the consequences of his actions and who might die as a result. But if this anonymous person is like Jamie Lanister and knows that Trump, although the elected President, is borderline insane or mentally unfit for the job, do you think it is ethically right for him to subvert the will of the elected President? I'm not speaking legally because it would seem to be illegal, but do you think it is ethical?

  95. Re: by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

    Yes, not Wall St. and London bankers.

    Neither of which are remotely related to any of this , except in the minds of the most magical thinkers.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  96. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are delightfully insane.

    The deep state doesn't exist, this is simply an adult in the room removing sharp objects from a toddler. Deep state is something conservatives invented to explain the difference between reality and the things Fox news tells them.

    The Democrats have absolutely *nothing* to do with this. This is between Trump and one of his senior officials. Which one is the Democrat in this fantasy universe you live in?

  97. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  98. Anonymous coward? by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 0

    So it was Mike Pence then?

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    1. Re:Anonymous coward? by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

      Nope, he says he didn't write it, and politicians never lie. https://www.bbc.com/news/world...

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  99. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by hierofalcon · · Score: 2

    While I agree in principle with your comments on the oath, it is a balancing act because the same oath requires you to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter". Their duty is to the Constitution if it is actually being violated or about to be violated by some act commanded from above. If not, then faithfully discharging your duties in office should prevail. Not liking what is going on is insufficient unless the Constitution is at risk. Many in the armed forces have thought particular conflicts were wrong over the course of your history. Yet they don't get to just frustrate the orders from above with impunity and without consequence.

  100. Sedition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The White House can seek a summary judgement against an anonymous John Doe. And then compel the NYT to reveal the individual's identity.

  101. The Op-Ed was not intended for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Op-Ed is an attempt to reassure wavering Republicans and scared shitless independents that the "real GOP" is in control so don't worry about hair furor deciding to nuke NYC because the Times ran a story he didn't like. "You will still get your rape of the environment, forced birth, tax-free for the 1%, protection-less society we promised but we will keep the loon from starting WWIII".

    It is a message to try to thwart the bloodbath November is shaping up to be

  102. Guilt vs. Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

    - to become gutted, just in case he/she has guts and the administration WANTS/needs to be right?
    (We have all heard what happens to people working for dictators and/or corrupt regeimes - you get 'fired', either way)

  103. Who then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign,"

    Uhmmm... is she talking about Trump, or the anonymous coward?

    Captcha "alarmed"

  104. politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Politics. The person who wrote it understands that most of the republican party, and most importantly, many moderates, do not like Trump. This is an appeal to them. The lauditory sentences describing the writer and the republican party, the claim the president is unfit for office without introducing any of the points that would actually make him unfit for office, adopting the things Trump has done as being republican victories instead of Trump victories, attempting to placate the media, and praising McCain. It says "Real republicans aren't Trump. Real republicans did all these things, not Trump. Trump is crazy, but not impeachable. Please keep voting republican." It is just the republican party distancing themselves from Trump.

    Like all politics, it is nothing.

  105. Hidden self appointed patriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mueller had a great deal more to reveal than Woodward. In the meantime 1) it is apparent that Kelly sure knows how to make his boss squeal, and 2) Kim from Korea is shoring up Trump's reputation

  106. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    help me God. Sigh. What's wrong with you guys?

    If there is a god, perhaps He will help.

    If there is no god, it can't hurt to ask.

  107. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    help me God. Sigh. What's wrong with you guys?

    If there is a god, perhaps He will help.

    If there is no god, it can't hurt to ask.

    It can hurt. I suspect stupidity is contagious and US politics is my petridish.

  108. This is insane by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sabotaging a government from the inside is as anti constitutional and as treasonous agaisnt the office as you can go. There is a constitutional remedy for incompetent (as in unable to fulfill office function) president and that is the 25th. It does not matter if it is Trump or Obama or whichever, sabotaging from the inside is way over the limit. Either give up your job, and let the president do its worst, then next elections there will be a rectification. Gee the republicans staffer are really dropping the ball here.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:This is insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unconstitutional?

      That depends on what the President is being thwarted from doing... If he's stopped from doing unconstitutional things, then it cannot be unconstitutional to stop him, can it?

      The 25th Amendment SHOULD be a solution - and it obvious it's been, or is being discussed by many, but it requires cooperation from those who don't seem to care about such matters, so long as they win...

  109. Re: Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By faithfully executing their office I think they should identify themself and resign for the good of the country. This is in line with honoring the country. Their loyalty is not to the president is never unquestioned.

  110. I suspect Michael Wolff by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    The "loadstar" usage was just a red herring.

    Michael Wolff is trying to give credibility to his new book "Fire and Fury"

  111. Anonymous = Made Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't an anonymous insider. It's a left-wing propagandist making something up. But, fear not. Trump LOVES the attention. It won't hurt him one bit.

    But, if it IS an insider, and this is legit, it is only proof that the unelected Deep State exists and is actively subverting a duly-elected President. If this is legit, it is proof that our freedom is a farce - a blend of illusion and bondage.

    So, which do you want it to be? Left wing propaganda? Or, proof that your whole nation's foundation is a lie?

  112. Re: by HeavenlyWhistler · · Score: 1
    If we switch to preference balloting then we won't need primaries at all. Just have all the candidates on the ballot for the general election. The parties exist now just to tell us whom we can't vote for.

    And yes, it would take a constitutional amendment to set this up at the national level for the presidential elections.

  113. Re:Says who? by rickb928 · · Score: 0

    Precisely this. Complaints about our President's morality, mental state, etc. are opinions. Factual bases for these complaints do not exist, for some require knowing his state of mind, and well that's pretty much impossible. For anyone.

    But the opposition isn't opposing him because of that. It's other things.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  114. Inconsistencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump when benefiting from leaks out of the Democratic camp: Information is good, and Anonymous Sources are great!

    Trump when being harmed from leaks out of the White House: Information is bad, and Anonymous Sources are cowards!

    The only thing Trump is consistent about is how he personally benefits from any given situation. The guy has psychopathic levels of self-interest. Most politicians suffer from this but Trump is Bigly-er IMO.

  115. It's BS by huckamania · · Score: 1

    This is just sound and fury before the midterms signifying nothing. The MSM has already proven that it will print outright lies (see Harry Reid calling out Mitt Romney for never paying income taxes). This is just more of the same.

    So, according to mister AC someone printed something, gave it to an intermediary to put on the President's desk, then the AC stole the print out from the desk and that worked? Did the person who printed it and the other person who put it on the President's desk do no follow up? Was the President not informed before hand that there would be a document for him to sign? Were there no other stake holders to follow up about the document? How many people have access to the President's desk and wouldn't someone else notice the AC stealing the document?

    No, I'm sorry to say that this does not pass the smell test. This sounds more and more like just innuendo and third hand reporting that will disappear and never be commented on again.

    1. Re:It's BS by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Harry Reid is a part of the MSM?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    2. Re: It's BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harry Reid IS the MSM, the Deep State, Deep Throat AND DB Cooper. Sheesh try and keep up.

  116. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not taking a loyalty oath to the POTUS.

    Try explaining that to Trump, who seems to believe the entire government is at his beck and call, and completely ignores the legality and the Constitution which spells out who does what.

    POTUS sure as hell thinks they're all sworn to be loyal to his every whim, even if it's illegal or might start a war.

  117. Re:Says who? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    Precisely this. Complaints about our President's morality, mental state, etc. are opinions. Factual bases for these complaints do not exist, for some require knowing his state of mind, and well that's pretty much impossible. For anyone.

    But the opposition isn't opposing him because of that. It's other things.

    There have been many examples by Trump of erratic and/or aberrant behavior. It is one thing to disagree with someones politics or policies. It is quite another to see someone behaving dangerously.

    Can you explain your reasons for supporting Trumps behavior? Can you explain how you think he is good for America?

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  118. I hope they keep it up by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Let's see, if this person goes public, then a) he's out, b) the Orange Cheetoh will have DoJ jail him, and c) he will have zero power to protect and defend the Constitution of the US.

    Meanwhile, I read Trevor Noah's cmts: if this is a curbed Trump, that we thought was off the rails, the uncurbed Trump is horrifying beyond words.

  119. Stakes Facts Not In Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All those positive trends you attribute to the tax bill? They were already in place before the tax bill. In fact they were in place before the current Presidency.

    This is part of the problem with the justification for said tax bill. It's unclear whether any of if was necessary, at all. Oh, it was needed to repay the Republicans donors, the 1%, and all that, granted, but was it needed for any other purpose?

    Probably not. You can say the tax bill supports the current trend of the economy, that would fly. Saying the economy is the result of the tax bill is just wishful thinking and partisanship.

    The tax bill was fundamentally an act of ideology, unsupported by secular interests.

  120. Re:Says who? by rickb928 · · Score: 0

    "There have been many examples by Trump of erratic and/or aberrant behavior."

    Oh, do provide some specific examples. Specific examples, please. I suspect what you will describe as 'erratic and/or aberrant' I will describe as impolitic, not quite the style we are used to from Presidents, and, most often, unimportant. You may not yet understand our President, but that doesn't make him erratic and/or aberrant.

    "It is one thing to disagree with someones politics or policies. It is quite another to see someone behaving dangerously."

    Again, specifics?

    "Can you explain your reasons for supporting Trumps behavior? Can you explain how you think he is good for America?"

    Actually, yes.

    First, his public Twitter behavior isn't the most important thing. It's not what he says, but what he does that I'm most focused on. He has reduced federal regulations, challenged our allies to actually act in their own interest, for example NATO contributions. He has changed the relationship with North Korea, and while this will take time, he's prevailing more than not. This in particular isn't settled, but it's changed, and for the better for us I believe.

    But back to your point, actually, I am not bothered by his 'behavior'. He's more plain spoken than some of our Presidents have been. this can be good.

    You may want to try and understand his 'behavior'. Try Scott Adam's web site. He's not an obvious supporter, but he explains. That's a good first step for you to turn away from the abyss.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  121. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they see the president's actions as the actions of an enemy, wouldn't they be doing their duty by not?

  122. Trump should resign by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

    He's clearly mentally unstable, or maybe just flat-out evil, not good for the country at all, and should resign or be removed as unfit, and Kavanaugh should remove himself from consideration.

  123. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ivanka or Jared as the author? Amazing....unh, could be amazing?

    My money is on the Orange haired man himself, Donald Trump. Now that would be amazing! (and ironically, possible!).

    As has been said before, he likes to stir shit up and thrives on chaos. Just sayin....

  124. Well then by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    I'm sure an anonymous NYT op ed will really sway a lot of votes of ... people who base their voting on anonymous NYT op eds.

  125. It was Pence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vice President Pence has seen the writing on the wall and is trying to lay the ground work for the "I was one of the good guys!" defense when President Trump goes down in flames.

  126. Filter design by rolias · · Score: 1

    It just sounds like they are acting like a low-pass filter, which is a sensible design consideration for any noisy system.

  127. not conservative enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read the op-ed, the guy/girl basically says that Trump is not really conservative enough. That seems to be what it's about. Not fears of worldwide apocalypse.

  128. Why Nixon had 24% support at the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think ethics means duty to a child kind instead of democratic institutions? You almost think Trump wrote this? That takes cognitive dissonance. The same kind that led worshipers of Christ to put authoritarianism before their own savior.

  129. You Can Not Fire Me! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Slaves have to be sold!

  130. Their Useful Idiot got out of control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of Republicans (the politicians/elite corporatists, not the little people) wanted Trump in there as a useful idiot, a distraction whilst they did all the horrible things they've been dreaming of doing for decades behind the curtain, which to a great extent they've done (massive de-regulation, gutting environmental law progress, huge rollbacks of human rights, etc.).

    So it's hard to feel too much sympathy for the GOP that their useful idiot has gotten away from their control. Sometimes getting what you wish for isn't so great after all.

  131. Author is waaaaay ahead of you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pattern-matching/machine learning algorithms will be used...the author will be found quickly

    It's already happening, and it seems pretty clear the author anticipated this, and deliberately used phrasing that would cause false positive matches. See for starters, use of the word "lodestar"

  132. Resistance within the White House != Deep State by craighansen · · Score: 1

    If you actually read the Op-Ed, it's very clear that the "Resistance within the White House" is not the "Deep State" that Trump whinges about. This "Resistance within the White House" is a part of the radical right wing of the Republican party that finds Trump repugnant but wants to stuff in as many tax cuts for the wealthy and ultra-conservative judges as possible before the Trump White House is consumed by hellfire. There is NOTHING honorable that they can claim to be accomplishing by doing so.

    One of the popular hashtags regarding this publication is #VeepThroat, based upon the use of use of the word "lodestar" in the op-ed. It's not at all clear that this is dispositive, or even a willing or unwilling false-flag signal. But the term is enticing, particularly as Woodward's "Fear" is coming out on 9/11.

  133. I'm Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I wrote that OP for New York Times. See I even have the same name here on Slashdot. If you believe that NY times article and my comment here you should really check out my site.

    www.bridges4sale.com

  134. Resign IF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Resign IF it is even a person. Another nameless source. No proof and no credability to this article. And yet the crazed will fall over their erections with glee to get a copy of it. When there isn't anything in it they'll start out on another endless quest to justify their anger and hatred.

  135. Why Anonymous ? by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    You can see from the story itself the reasons why folks post this stuff anonymously.

    Regardless if there is any truth to the Op-Ed or not, if it portrays the target in a negative light, folks always use the same
    methods to discredit the author ( and / or manipulate public opinion ) and they're pretty easy to spot once you know what
    to look for.

    Right off the bat, they're resorting to character assassination attacks starting with labeling of the author as " Coward ".
    Next we'll end up claiming it's just a smear tactic, penned by the opposition, etc. etc. We'll see every possible method
    there is to discredit the author, without even knowing who the author is. Other typically used labels are: Racist, Traitor,
    Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Left Wing, Right Wing, terrorist, pedophile, etc. etc. You get the point.

    Were the author to divulge their real name, the same tactics would be employed, only the focus would be sharpened to have
    maximum effect based on the authors character, beliefs and / or imperfections. Staying anonymous is the only means for
    a single voice to stand against the chorus of opposition that will band together ( and has far more influence over media channels )
    to destroy any who dare speak out in defiance.

    People use anonymous posts as a means to speak freely without fear of retaliation. We can swear up and down retaliation
    doesn't exist ( it's even illegal in some situations ) but we all know otherwise, thus the reason for staying anonymous.

    However, staying anonymous has its drawbacks ( and is ripe for abuse. Even the Government uses it when it suits them ) as well.

    It's easy to discredit or brush off information provided by an anonymous source as " Fake News " or " Propaganda ". Not so
    much if you have a real person whose information can be verified easily. ( See Snowden as an example ) Not to say they won't
    try. Snowden was branded a Traitor, Russian Spy, and half a dozen other names in an effort to discredit him. I dare say it didn't
    quite work out as well as they hoped it would.

    Imagine the hilarity that will ensue if it turns out the author of the Op-Ed is one of Trumps family members, friend of the family or an ally. :D

    1. Re:Why Anonymous ? by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

      The media is ramping up the impeachment narrative. And now this. How convenient. Oh and midterms.

      Rational people don't claim to act with a purpose, then undermine that purpose for no apparent reason in such a dramatic way. If I was going to design an incendiary device to lob at a declared enemy, it would look just like this one. It's worked perfectly.

      I'm calling Occams Razor on this one. People continue to underestimate the guile and mendacity of ruthless people determined to preserve the status quo that benefits them. There's nothing the 'greater good' also won't justify, either.

  136. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Remember that one time when we were in a cold war with a communist country? A lot of people here got real scared about godless communists and decided to fix this by putting things like "in God we trust" on our money. It made them feel better.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  137. another NYT reporter/contributor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some made up stuff "anonymously" sourced, where we find out that it really was a reporter, but we defend the whole thing because it had "truthiness" behind it, and anything justifies the results?

  138. The Best Part by bblb · · Score: 2

    The best part of Trump's election has really been the way it's led to liberals coming completely unhinged and exposing themselves as the party of hate and deceit. I've never been a huge fan of Trump's but the one thing he's unquestionably succeeded at is showing what a vile and disgusting bunch of self serving and seditious scumbags the political elite are.

  139. President Pense Resign? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now? In our moment of triumph?!? I think you over-estimate the Rebels' chances.

  140. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To bad they are so sloppy at their duties. Dumbest resistance ever.

  141. DEEP SWAMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get more info on the deep swamp here: https://www.real.video/5831399664001

  142. See the SWAMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here: https://www.real.video/5831399664001

  143. IGNORE THE SWAMP ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks, let's take one step back:

    1. NYT called for the assassination of Trump about two years ago. How is that "reputable" ?
    2. NYT is basically a mouthpiece of NY finance interests. These are mostly Globalists and only look down on the "deplorables".
    3. After the "Mueller Russia probe" has lost its effect the Deep Swamp of Globalists (from Google to SES) created a new bogus thing.

    4. Haven't we already got the "Golden Showers" nonsense from the Deep Swamp ? The FBI even started an investigation based on this fabricated stuff. That shows how morally broken "institutions" like the FBI and the NYT are.

    So what to do ?

    Just IGNORE this m4anur3 and carry on ! Ignore it like the Mueller thing and it will fizzle out without effect !

    https://www.real.video/5831345857001

  144. Sure Commie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You tools and your Big Money Paymasters are going to win any time from now. Not.

    https://www.real.video/5831345857001

  145. Trump, an outsider -- the great litmus test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love Trump in office because he is a tangible litmus/stress test of existing gov't bodies.

    Republicans say they want to do all this stuff, but those darn Dems keep slowing them down. So Trump hands them the keys to the car and what do you know... they cant even start it.

    America officially recognizes Jersualem as the capital of Israel, but many parties say "you better not, or else". Trump says "whatever" and moves the US embassy there, and what do you know... nothing happens.

    Trump criticizes the media for being biased and agenda-driven, and what do you know... their continued responses lend credibility to Trump's accusation.

    Trump says there's a deep state then stuff like this comes out (unverified, and not proof of a deep state, but damn -- this is going to backfire on the leaker).

    The stress Trump places on the system is healthy, because it helps reveal things for what they are, even if it's ugly. It's best to confront our own ugliness.

  146. Re:Says who? by greythax · · Score: 1

    ...require knowing his state of mind, and well that's pretty much impossible. For anyone.

    By this standard, how could anyone anywhere ever be diagnosed unstable?

    I know, we could look at what he says and does! Like arguing that photographic evidence is somehow inaccurate. Or holding that he never said things for which there is video of him saying them.

    One is left with 2 conclusions from which to draw. Either he has a very tenuous grasp on reality, or he is telling the worlds most obvious lies and thinks that YOU are dumb enough to believe them.

    At the very least it seems obvious that he holds you with far less respect than you do him.

  147. Re:Says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been many examples by Trump of erratic and/or aberrant behavior.

    Oh, do provide some specific examples. Specific examples, please. I suspect what you will describe as 'erratic and/or aberrant' I will describe as impolitic, not quite the style we are used to from Presidents, and, most often, unimportant. You may not yet understand our President, but that doesn't make him erratic and/or aberrant.

    How about we start with his very first day in office? He has insisted, in writing (Twitter), that the size of his inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama's. When confronted with photographic evidence that his claim was untrue, he doubled down, reiterating his claim in writing plus claiming it verbally in interviews. Donald Trump is literally willing to deny the evidence of his own eyes and your eyes, to try to "win" some bizarre contest that exists only in his own head. By cheating.

    After the event, he started rewriting it in his own head, then telling people how he thought it should have been as if it were, despite video evidence from dozens of cameras to the contrary. It was a rainy day. He said it was a sunny day. When asked why his own wife was wearing a poncho, he couldn't answer the question. People on the podium with him were wearing ponchos to keep the rain off, and he made the claim that it was sunny, on the record.

    This is such aberrant behavior for an adult that the phrase narcissistic personality disorder became commonplace. We expect two year old children to attempt to deny reality like that for their own ends. We expect them to stop shortly thereafter. Trump has never stopped.

    Trump has spent the past two years making any outlandish claim that he thinks will make himself look good, and never ever admitting he's wrong even when the whole world can see the evidence that he is. A startling number of those claims are solely for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. They make little or no policy difference, they affect no one, really, but they are so frequent, so pervasive, and so common that they have people like you thinking that lying about reality to make yourself look better is somehow normal and expected and maybe he's not even lying? Maybe it's true and we're all just out to get him?

    It's not normal. It is aberrant behavior. It's so aberrant and so pervasive that it's evidence of a pathology.

  148. Re: Says who? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Well we generally employ experts who examine individuals suspected of instability or dangerous states of mind to, well, evaluate and offer their educated opinion.

    We don't ordinarily decide someone is unstable or dangerous based on their behavior in social media, and we don't ordinarily employ people who have made it clear they dislike, or hate, or merely oppose the subject. We normally would employ reasonably objective examiners. Certainly not their political opposition...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  149. Oh, shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not me, but I was going to resign soon for personal reasons.

    Now I can't resign without be labeled a traitor.

  150. HAHAHAAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was ZERO organized resistance from The Swamp, when Cheney decided to attack Iraq FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. Except the nonsense he and his fellow elitists created.

    So - these are corrupt creatures and their oath is totally WORTHLESS.

    Here is some real news, boy: http://real.video

    1. Re:HAHAHAAHA by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Cheney personally managed the Iran/Iraq war/stalemate under Reagan.

      He had a reason, restart the the Sunni/Shia stalemate. They just couldn't say it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  151. Anonymous source? by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

    Not knowing who it is, all we know about him or her is that the editorial board of the New York Times likes what he or she has to say. For all we know, it's some random blogger, or someone entirely made up, like the Jayson Blair thing.

    1. Re:Anonymous source? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      Not knowing who it is, all we know about him or her is that the editorial board of the New York Times likes what he or she has to say. For all we know, it's some random blogger, or someone entirely made up, like the Jayson Blair thing.

      Silly boy, It's Hillary, writing from her Pizzagate Bunker.

      Vetted out by the Bwana Devil himself - O'Blama, writing from his bunker in the Kenyan embassy at the secret film stage in Area 51 where Stanly Kubrick filmed the faked moon landings.

      We'll find out soon enough, but the Smart money is on John McCain's buddy, Dan Coats.

      I was just curious though. As you and the other Trumpites join along with your leader Trump, in the castigation and making enemies of nearly all Americans, do you have a final solution? The circle of those appointed by God to join Trump in MAGA is getting smaller and smaller, so while you have allies, you better start culling your enemies soon

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Anonymous source? by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Trumpite? I didn't vote for the SOB. He's an <expletive deleted> embarrassment. The only thing more embarrassing is the "Riot until we overturn the results of the election" gang. Though a lot of the hard-core Trumpunists come close.

      I don't think I have ever posted anything positive about Trump.

    3. Re:Anonymous source? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      Trumpite? I didn't vote for the SOB. He's an <expletive deleted> embarrassment. The only thing more embarrassing is the "Riot until we overturn the results of the election" gang. Though a lot of the hard-core Trumpunists come close.

      I don't think I have ever posted anything positive about Trump.

      In my sarcasm, there is one bit of seriousness. Dan Coats is the likely perp. Lawrence O'Donnell has a pretty good analysis of who he believes it is, and the argument is pretty sound. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Coats is in his last Government job,

      Anyhow, sorry for using your post as the springboard for my traditional Friday night fun rant. I'm a baaaad boy. But it's all in fun and to troll Dear Leader's sycophants.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  152. is Re: Yes, they should by orlanz · · Score: 1

    It is around because it is by design. There is only ONE part of the US government that is actually represented of the people who vote (note, its not all the people). That is the House of Representatives within Congress. Even the Senate is not a representation of the people. The House members also only serve 2 year terms!

    POTUS isn't supposed to represent nor be curtailed by national mood swings. Neither is SCOTUS. The Senate represent their state, not it's people. If the US government was as represented by the people as the media and everyone thinks, we wouldn't have freed the slaves, couldn't stay in Wars, women & blacks wouldn't have voting rights, etc.

    And the people DO elect their Electors. Even though it looks like you are voting for a single person, you are actually selecting the group of Electors who will vote for that person if they go to the Electoral Collage. You still aren't voting for a POTUS because most states will dump ALL of their Electoral votes to the one that had the majority. So every year, many Electors technically don't vote the way their people told them to.

    1. Re:is Re: Yes, they should by greythax · · Score: 1

      And the people DO elect their Electors. Even though it looks like you are voting for a single person, you are actually selecting the group of Electors who will vote for that person if they go to the Electoral Collage.

      No, if I was voting for electors, I would have a choice, for instance, between Bob and Larry, both pledged to vote for Trump. Maybe I like Larry because I think he is honest, and not Bob, because Bob raped my dog. Larry would get my vote and represent my desire to vote for Trump if we win.

      What I vote for now, is a candidate, for example, Trump. Then Trump's party sends some shadowy and unknown elector, probably a donor of some kind, to cast a vote for Trump, but that unvetted and unelected person has the power, in most states, to cast a vote for whoever he wants, including write in candidates, though he may incur a small fine.

      Those are not the same things.

      And POTUS, not being a lifetime appointment, is totally meant to be answerable to the people, not just the senate.

  153. It was 'the donald' by rcgorton.dg · · Score: 1

    Conspiracy Theory: It was 'the Donald' himself. A further attempt to muddy the picture and distract from the Russian investigation

  154. Re: Says who? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    And this is why we don't employ political opposition to evaluate aberrant behavior. Your example is more easily described as political hyperbole than clinical evidence of, well, anything.

    Seriously, this isn't much to hang your hat on. Remember when Obama declared that the Cambridge, Massachusetts police 'acted stupidly' when they arrested a college professor, at his own home front door? Recall the facts of that incident? That Obama actually admitted he didn't know all the facts?

    What do you call someone who decides what the facts of an incident are when they shot they don't know all the facts, declares that one party 'acted stupidly', despite admittedly not having all the facts?

    Stupid, themselves? That's actually the minimum, to me. No, not unstable, nut maybe narcissistic, as in loving the sound of their own voice so much, or believing their opinion on any subject is so important that they can make it up as they go along?

    Yeah, Trump tried to make his inaugural crowd more than it was. Vanity. He's not the first president guilty of vanity. Elevating it to some clinically dangerous instance of narcissism is pure political theater. Buy your own popcorn.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  155. That's not true at all by skam240 · · Score: 1

    ". If you oppose the balance of that social contract, then logically you must also allow for the renegotiation of the union, or it being dissolved, because you are advocating against the terms of the existing social contract."

    No, the way the constitution is set up that is not the case at all. A simple ammendment with all of its hurdles is all that it takes. It's right there in the agreement everyone signed.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  156. TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

      2382 - Misprision of treason
      2384 - Seditious conspiracy
      2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

    RRK

  157. 1st Google hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-time-cure/201709/the-dangerous-case-donald-trump

    1. Re: 1st Google hit by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      You're familiar with the Goldwater Rule?

      Had any of these essayists had direct observation of President Trump in private, out of the public eye? No, they had only their observations of his public behavior.

      Seriously, Yale professors? I reject any claims of their objectivity. And such essays are indistinguishable from political attacks.

      Nope. Fail. An Article 25 action would only be a coup. Unwise.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  158. Fuck you, no refunds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't get to lament, have regrets, or tell us how to fix the mess YOU made. YOU voted for this fucker. You wanted this bed of shit, begged for it even, so now you're gonna lay in the stinking pile and you'll fucking like every fucking second.

  159. They already have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already have. It is most likely Mike Pence for at least part of it. He is the only politician who regularly uses the word "lodestar" which in my opinion isn't even a fucking word, but the dictionary disagrees so whatever.

  160. What is the motivation? by Walter+White · · Score: 1

    What I wonder, and what I didn't get from the essay is what the author hoped to accomplish.

    1. Re:What is the motivation? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      What I wonder, and what I didn't get from the essay is what the author hoped to accomplish.

      Men who have sold their soul to thd devil will do the devil's bidding. This man was trying to take down Trump, who is doing God's will on earth.

      There is an increasingly interesting rumor that Trump is actually the very son of God, come to fulfill the end time prophecies.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  161. Re:Says who? by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

    I agree, it's normal to think poorly of any politician but the way many are convinced Trump is somehow evil and stupid is a bit disconcerting.

    Most of his actual policy decisions aren't that bad, and if you look at how he likely came to the decision it's usually clear: many of them don't take into regard all the past 'politics' of it (see Israel embassy move, which also makes many of his decisions seem 'shocking' but what is really just bold), or they're made without the long-term public policy background, which makes even more sense because he wasn't a politician before.

    I think most people are just shocked to see someone with his style in that position, it's offensive to them, but they should really just calm down. I meet bigger jerks on a daily basis and know good people that regular say more 'offensive' things regularly, which normal people don't take offense too, just the twittersphere. He's been a successful man in work and life; he has a beautiful family he's on all good terms with, a hot wife, successful business, and he won the election for president of the fucking United States.. people should celebrate success like that more than berate. And hate his style all you want - all politicians should be scrutinized heavily - but keep it to policy decisions and research both sides. You might find he's actually not that bad at the job.

  162. MLK was not a good person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was the face of a good movement, but like Ghandi and Mother Teresa, was human and had flaws.

  163. Mis-transcription by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    `"The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign," she added.`

    Boy! I am enjoying reading this as a mis-transcription which should read:

    "The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support. The duly elected President of the United States, he is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign," she added.

  164. They vote for Trump because of Media Cramming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cramming_(education)

    Since Athens in 600 BC you can't vote without critical thinking or you may vote for your favorite Tyrant.

    For critical thinking the essential step is education. Therefore education for all is a promise since the Enlightenment in the 18th century.

    So they vote for Trump because cramming critical thinking is not possible.

    Every people resolute to vote try to sort the information feed on them. The media take for granted that their news really are digestible. But many voters overload and try alternative strategies : emotional sort, biggest punchline sort, self-interest sort, strategies still good for advertisment by the way. Sadly another decision maker's issue is to switch to an alternative reality : conspiracy theories, archangel Michael protects the climate.

  165. Re:Says who? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    It honestly started long before his inauguration. If the Bad Lip Reading YouTube channel put out a video of his own interpretation of a trump speech, and then another where he simply read the transcript, I'd wager most people wouldn't be able to reliably determine which was which. Trump has always made other bad speakers like Bush sound like legendary orators. He clearly can't hold a thought long enough to form a few proper sentences to express it.

  166. This Is Why You Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. Hillary got Dump elected. She showed up in person at every voting station and forced all those Trump voters to vote with their conscience, for Trump. All during a one day election event. They didn't want to do it, oh no, they really wanted to vote for Hillary, but Hillary wouldn't let them! She used her claw hands to force your hands to the wrong candidate!

    Hillary is the cause of all your problems!

    And it's "Florida", not "flordia", ya wanker.

  167. "Coward"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't be any more cowardly that that fat, orange, entitled, moronic, Big Mac-scarfing megalomaniac with "bone spurs" ("bone spurs, big bone spurs, ocean bone spurs") pretending to be a president.

  168. Trump only hires ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the best people.

  169. Just sayin' by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    When I've had people write disparging things about me that were untrue, I either ignored them or made fun of them.

    The mean girl hissyfit that Emperor BoneSpurs has embarked upon simply verifies the article is spot on true.

    Apparently the McCain death and funeral was the final straw for someone.

    This is not a true anonymous story, the "Failing New York Times" knows exactly who it is, and it will come out soon enough. It correlates with the new book "Fear" by Robert Woodward, who even the cowardly Republicans agree is as straight a shooter as you'll find.

    Meanwhile, I would offer the Emperor a protip. When completely innocent, the best tactic is to act innocent. Just sayin'.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  170. Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No, the "popular" vote isn't a thing, just a point of attack"
    Errr no, the popular vote is whomever most of the populace voted for.
    "The election rules don't work in that way" at no point did I say that they did.
    "Have you tabled an amendment to change elections to 'the popular vote'?" nope because 1) I'm not an elected rep 2) I'm not even a US voter.

  171. The Problem With This Argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Know what the problem with this argument is? It's a "Play By The Rules" argument.

    Guess who doesn't play by the rules? Donald Trump. In fact he gleefully urinates all over the rules, even as he attacks everyone else who doesn't play by the rules.

    Playing by the rules in this Administration gets you kneecapped. Normally I'd agree with you but Donald Dump has changed to the rules to, "win by any means necessary. Also lie about winning when you aren't winning." In fact I've read a convincing analysis that suggests Omarosa has made some headway against Dump by using his same tactics.

    And if that isn't a sad commentary about the degradation that Donald Dump has brought to national political discussion, I don't know what is. Those two vipers deserve each other.

  172. online JoB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you think kAthryn`s story is terrific..., lAst pAy cheque my dAds girlfriend bAsicAlly eAsily mAde $8557 grAfting from there house And the're buddy's Aunt`s neighbour done this for 3 months And ActuAlly eArnt more thAn $8557 in their spAre time from A lAbtop. Apply the instructions here...,,,,,,www.99logic.com