"So now you leave — ah, have a beautiful farm, husband, a wife, and you love your kids. By the way, if you don't love your kids, don't leave it to them. Don't worry about it. Then this won't help too much."
Charles P. Pierce's column yesterday was pretty good. His wife is convinced it was Kellyanne Conway. Wives are rarely wrong...
c.
Charlie used to write for the Boston Globe. I came across his columns belatedly but read as many as I could before he left. He can be a bit prolix (I should talk) and quite digressive but he draws from a deep, deep well of knowledge. He used to discuss his pieces with readers in the comment sections of pieces. He had some unusual ideas (IIRC advocating for PED use in professional sports because, hey, wouldn't it have been cool if we got to see Sandy Koufax pitch for more seasons than he did) but he also had a very loyal readership.
Trump's rambling speeches as Billy Joel lyrics...never would have thought of that myself but I can see Charlie's point. Glad to see he's still groovin'.
I'd love to know the exchange of the replacement lady #2 and the guy next to her. Anyone read lips?
"would you vote for this guy?" "Nope"
"Did you get paid yet?" "Nuh uh"
"got any gum?" "nerp"
They replaced another guy earlier who looks like he's just trying to stay awake, but he told reporters they said he didn't react appropriately when Trump talked about Greg Gianforte beating on a reporter.
The first two women they sent in look like they were with the show, plus a recruit.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2018 - 8:31am
cc_rider wrote:
Charles P. Pierce's column yesterday was pretty good. His wife is convinced it was Kellyanne Conway. Wives Women are rarely wrong...
c.
Someone I know (whose observations are typically pretty astute) noted a certain tone of "Mil-Speak" which suggests CoS Kelly. And this person is not anyone's wife, but she is a woman, so I felt obliged to fix your typo.
Well they did admit they were part of his senior staff. My guess is they haven't a clue what the 25th amendment is, let alone how it works. To alert the public and not begin the process basically says I am in over my head and need the public to be aware what is going on. The narcissism of remaining anonymous and claiming to being able to keep this clown in check is warning enough in my opinion.
Charles P. Pierce's column yesterday was pretty good. His wife is convinced it was Kellyanne Conway. Wives are rarely wrong...
CiC was in Billings, Montana yesterday. They hired people to stand behind him and look interested, but two guys started to drift, so they sent them on their way...
I'd love to know the exchange of the replacement lady #2 and the guy next to her. Anyone read lips?
CiC was in Billings, Montana yesterday. They hired people to stand behind him and look interested, but two guys started to drift, so they sent them on their way...
Something Stephen Colbert brilliantly pointed out in his monologue last night was that initiating the 25th amendment would NOT precipitate a constitutional crisis - it would *avert* one. Either the anonymous author of that op-ed has no clue as to how the Constitution and its amendments work or s/he is confident the rest of us do not.
Well they did admit they were part of his senior staff. My guess is they haven't a clue what the 25th amendment is, let alone how it works. To alert the public and not begin the process basically says I am in over my head and need the public to be aware what is going on. The narcissism of remaining anonymous and claiming to being able to keep this clown in check is warning enough in my opinion.
Unemployment is so low that even Kaepernick found a job!
Unemployment is not just a number. There are several people working 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet. Where one job per person used to suffice now it is more like 2-3. The darker your skin and the poorer you are, the more jobs you require. These silly jobs that he is said to have created is mostly at the cost of environment. Before you spout off with suggested Trump tweets make sure they are at least in part NOT fake news.
I would rather the authors have the courage and faith in our systems (that they purport to be protecting and serving). They claimed they felt initiating the 25th amendment would precipitate a constitutional crisis, so they have chosen to take actions that specifically subvert our constitution. This isn't how it should work.
Have they really put forth any new news? Did anyone really think that Trump was full of morality and even handed in his decision making? Did people really think his staff wasn't dizzy from rolling their eyes all the time? No. Now we just know that some trade policy wasn't effected because someone stole a piece of paper from the president's desk. Think about that: Some one who wasn't elected, who has little outside accountability, and is currently anonymous, stole a paper to keep trump from implementing a policy. That you didn't like the policy doesn't impact the wrongness of everything that occurred there. Your willingness to shrug it off because you liked the end result is little different from all the trumpettes in the country who are giving a big ole ¯_(ã)_/¯ to the racism, nationalism, nepotism, isolationism, despotism that is occurring constantly because they got to show Hillary that they didn't like her.
"They claimed they felt initiating the 25th amendment would precipitate a constitutional crisis, so they have chosen to take actions that specifically subvert our constitution.
According to the anonymous author of the op-ed, that decision to not (yet) start the process of invoking the 25th Amendment was made by cabinet members, not lower-level staffers. Those cabinet members likely realized that there was not sufficient support within the Republican party for a successful effort at removal of Trump. Was their decision to not go forward courageous? No. Was that decision based at least partly on self-interest, i.e. keeping their jobs? Quite probably. But removal of a sitting president is a political process. The will within the GOP to remove Trump, or to join a Democratic effort to do so, is not strong enough yet.
If cabinet members openly talked about removing Trump early on in the administration, the GOP would have denounced them and Trump would have fired them. And the chaos would still be there. Even if cabinet members and Anonymous had just leaked information about Trump's rasher decisions and demands, it likely would not have done much good.
I don't like that senior administration officials feel they have to snatch documents, distract Trump or ignore his decisions (as SecDef Mathis did when Trump told him to assassinate Syrian president al-Assad). But those people are trying to run the country and make the administration function somewhat effectively. They are trying to avoid major crises.
This isn't how it should work."
Even though you're right when you say that's not how it should work, the political reality is that staffers and bureaucrats long before Trump's administration have frustrated, slow-walked, or outright ignored decisions made by the president. That's not how it should work but that's how it does. One big difference is that such foot-dragging in the past was over bureaucratic implementation of policy details. Woodward's book and Anonymous's op-ed indicate that people within the administration are trying to avert major crises that suddenly blow up merely because Trump keeps changing his mind, or doesn't understand even the basics of big issues, or ignores potential consequences of his decisions.
The piece suggests that Anonymous and Co. are not just doing end-runs around Trump on minor issues. Anonymous and Co. apparently primarily subverting and blocking Trump's more dangerous and destabilizing decisions, ones made impulsively and having major consequences. Anonymous supports some of the administration's goals and achievements, but suddenly abrogating NAFTA or our free-trade agreement with South Korea is not just "some trade policy" as you put it. That f%*ks up the daily operations of many, many American and foreign companies without any real warning and has serious macroeconomic effects. In the case of South Korea, the sudden cancellation of that free-trade agreement could quite likely cause the SK system of government to collapse—not just the SK administration in power. It would possibly encourage North Korea to act aggressively, perhaps even militarily.
"Have they really put forth any new news?" ?
?!?!!?
Of course "they" have. Anonymous's op-ed adds a great deal of support to Woodward's book, which in turn was based on a lot of anonymous sources. The op-ed piece just adds support to the need to have a formal debate in Congress about Trump's lack of fitness to serve and/or his possible crimes. It shows that Trump is far more dangerous and unpredictable than previous reports and rumors suggested.
You seem to think that the GOP should have acted on principle and started talk about removing Trump long ago. On principle, yes. But it's hard to imagine the Repubs or Dems (if they were in a similar situation) would have jeopardized their hold on the branches of government so early on in a presidency. People within the GOP still think that they can handle Trump and keep him from plowing through the guardrails. Anonymous and Woodward add strong evidence that the GOP Senators and Congressmen are being dangerously complacent with that decision to go along with Trump.
"That you didn't like the policy doesn't impact the wrongness of everything that occurred there."
Yes, it's wrong that administration officials feel that they have to steal papers, etc. to prevent disastrous decisions from reaching fruition. But again, past presidents have been guided and handled by staff and politicians in their own party. I don't mind what Gary Cohn and Anonymous did because I think they're trying to prevent disasters and not just make policy that they like. And again: when a president is this dysfunctional and dangerous, the public has a right to know what's going on, even if it means that a public official has to remain anonymous when spilling the beans. Anonymous and Woodward prove that formal discussion about removing Trump is not just a resentful Democratic pipedream but a valid and well-justified necessity.
I keep going back to the lead in of "resistance, but not that lefty resistance", and the close of "one America, non partisan and strong", and I just think this person is another asshole part of the problem. Doesn't mean I'm not happy that we're not at war, but don't claim conscience and superiority while admitting your crimes.
Our entire system of government was meant to thwart the will of the majority. The bulk of the constitution is devoted to limiting the powers of those elected.
The majority (as expressed in the electoral structure we have) wanted an infantile fratboy-in-chief to roll into Washington and shake things up. They aren't getting their way in many areas; they blame the entrenched bureaucracy preserving it's own power and influence (and there is a great deal of truth to that characterization) but it's also people taking the duties of their offices seriously.
When a member of the administration confirmed by Congress* is sworn in they don't swear loyalty to the president, or his party, or to the mob that elected him. They swear to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.
The fact that they if they told the gibbering buffoon who can fire them what they're up to they'd disappear to be replaced by someone more compliant says more about their boss than about them. For one thing it betrays the fact that he took the same oath and violates it on a daily basis, but it also means his own administrative incompetence lets them get away with it.
"Where's that paper abrogating the treaty I wanted to sign? I haven't heard anything about it on Fox & Friends and the news should have broken by now. I want it on my desk in an hour!" If his staff can manipulate him that easily it means he's not doing his job.
Thank goodness.
*Not that the author of the published manifesto is that, necessarily, but maybe one of them delegated that duty.
