From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
470
Views

Re: The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage

470 Views
Message 11 of 18

How typical of the destructive way we are going in America. A perfectly valid thought was offered for discussion - "An attempt to nullify the election isn't something to celebrate, even if you dislike Trump."

 

It was not responded to with anything other than hatred for the President, cartoons and even the usual questioning of sources. And naturally a kudo shopping totally off topic attack on fellow posters, "Trump cultists .............. nothin' like em !!".

 

People - this is a "discussion board" - does no one understand the meaning of the term.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
470
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
527
Views

Re: The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage

527 Views
Message 12 of 18

Exactly. This op-ed basically says the same things contained in at least three books (Michael Wolff, Omarosa, and Bob Woodward).

 

I read Wolf's book and mostly came away with Trump entered the White totally unprepared which led to the chaos we witnessed.

 

When I read Omarosa's book, she said the same thing - he was ill-prepared. But, she took it further suggesting that Trump might be "losing it". From what I read about the Op-Ed, it basically says the same thing or that he's over his head.

 

Omarosa also said Trump likes controversy and chaos as long as the chaos is among his staff - and not him. He like to work one against the other. Sort of like The Apprentice.

 

Trump, she said, also has nicknames for everyone - mostly derogatory names. Some pretty bad. And everyone finds out sooner or later their nicknames.

 

But one part in Omarosa's book was memorable and I thought "telling".

 

Trump went balistic on General Kelly. Kelly left the room saying something like "No one has ever spoken to me like that! Never!"

 

trump security.jpg

 

 

 

 

I think Trump doesn't have friends in the White House (with the exception of his family members). 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
527
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
537
Views

Re: The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage

537 Views
Message 13 of 18

@jimc91 wrote:

An attempt to nullify the election isn't something to celebrate, even if you dislike Trump.


http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/06/new-york-times-anonymous-op-ed-pushes-electoral-sabotage/

 


Back with THE FEDERALIST again, I see, @jimc91.

 

Don't forget, folks....

 

This is the same media outlet that defended ROY MOORE'S dating of under-age TEENS because "it was not without merit if one wants to raise a large family".

 

Sickening.......

 

Too make things worse, its founder is an admitted plagiarizer. He had to start his own media outlet because legit media outlets won't touch plagiarizers with a TEN FOOT POLE.

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
537
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
535
Views

Re: The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage

535 Views
Message 14 of 18

Related image

dt has his Yuge need to the best so we can definitely give that to him.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
535
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
529
Views

Re: The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage

529 Views
Message 15 of 18

CriticalThinking:  Nobody I know was surprised by anything in that article. It was yet another example of what we already know about the most dangerous President of our lifetime.

 

 

Exactly. This op-ed basically says the same things contained in at least three books (Michael Wolff, Omarosa, and Bob Woodward). This is not going to end well for the true believers.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
529
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
541
Views

Re: The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage

541 Views
Message 16 of 18

Trump cultists .............. nothin' like em !!


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
541
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
9
Kudos
541
Views

The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage

541 Views
Message 17 of 18

This is yet another example of Trump World living in an alternate reality where they pretend his incompetencve, non-stop lying, and insults do not exist. Nobody I know was surprised by anything in that article. It was yet another example of what we already know about the most dangerous President of our lifetime.

Report Inappropriate Content
9
Kudos
541
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
465
Views
17
Replies

The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage

465 Views
Message 18 of 18

An attempt to nullify the election isn't something to celebrate, even if you dislike Trump.

 

An anonymous op-ed published in The New York Times, penned by “a senior Trump administration official,” contends that a cabal of senior staffers have secretly schemed to undermine Donald Trump in an effort to protect the American people. “I work for the president,” claims the purported senior official, “but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”

 

The problem with the much-discussed op-ed isn’t only that it fails to offer a single example of officials actually “thwarting” the Trump agenda or saving the republic from his capriciousness. It’s that it celebrates the idea of nullifying an election.

 

 

While I’m sure much of the op-ed is thematically accurate, it’s difficult to believe the author is a selfless public servant letting us know that our democratic institutions are safe in their nameless hands. Any member of the administration legitimately concerned about reigning in the president’s outbursts—and doubtlessly there are a number of them—would never have sent an article guaranteed to generate more White House chaos and paranoia.

 

It would make no sense. Trump, after all, is already dealing with interminable leaks. The piece will only further confirm his suspicions that a Fifth Column is undercutting the presidency, which will make him less likely to listen to advisors.

 

To be fair, if you were informed that a faction of “senior” staffers was actively subverting your “agenda”—not merely your tweeting or hyperbole about the media, but the policy items that you promised the electorate you would pursue—you might have some valid reasons to be suspicious, as well.

 

Worse, Anonymous contends that a clique of political appointees have some kind of ethical obligation to ignore the president’s agenda items, not because they’re unconstitutional or corrupt, but simply because it chafes them ideologically. Hey, I don’t like many of Trump’s positions on immigration and trade, either. Like the author, I support “free minds, free markets and free people.” But the notion that the bureaucratic class in Washington should dictate which policies presidents are allowed to advocate simply by ignoring their wishes sounds a lot more like a soft coup than a constitutionally principled resistance.

 

 

Now, is it really happening? It’s doubtful.

 

The New York Times defended the op-ed, which is larded up with familiar grievances and clichéd rhetoric, by contending that it “adds significant value to the public’s understanding of what is going on in the Trump administration from someone who is in a position to know.”

 

Really, though, what did we learn from it? The president’s temperament is already well known to anyone who’s paid any attention to politics. The only concrete example of Trump engaging in actions “detrimental to the health of our republic” offered in the piece revolves around an incident in which the president was purportedly reluctant to expel a large number of Russians spies.

 

“But his national security team knew better,” writes Anonymous, “such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable. This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.” (By the way, you didn’t need an anonymous op-ed to tell you about this interaction, since it was reported in the March 29 edition of The Washington Post.)

 

 

So the president’s national security team convinced Trump to take a course of action that he was initially disinclined to adopt? Isn’t that staffers’ job? Doesn’t that happen all the time? And the fact that the president is willing to heed staff’s advice—recommendations that are just long-established GOP positions—isn’t exactly bolstering the case for the 25th Amendment solution.

 

Anonymous also tells us the administration’s victories on deregulation, tax reform, and a stronger military “come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.” It’s certainly convenient for this person to take the credit for all the good things and none of the blame for the bad ones.

 

Whatever the case, the fact is that the president, however anti-democratic his instincts might be or whatever crazy things he tweets, signed off on all of these reforms. All of them constitutional. It’s not a “normal” presidency, but judging from the evidence it is far less abnormal policy-wise than the hysterics suggest.

 

I mean, I understand why the New York Times broke its standards and published the op-ed. I’m also sure the paper’s editorial page isn’t lying about the writer’s title. But, as they know, the designation of “senior official” is wide-ranging and includes hundreds of people, some of them close to the president and others just functionaries who have little contact with him.

 

 

There are lots of theories about the author’s identity. Maybe it’s an official leaving the administration and interested in preemptively gaining acceptance of the media and the resistance, all the perks that will come with taking credit for the op-ed. Or maybe a Steve Bannon-type hardliner is pushing false flags to try to create chaos and steer the president away from restrictionist trade and immigration policies. Or maybe it’s someone who felt like emoting or feeling important.

 

Whoever it is, if he really wanted the administration to “succeed,” as Anonymous claims, there was no conceivable upside to writing this op-ed. It’s just sabotage. If Anonymous really believes the president is a threat to the republic, he should quit.  No one is forcing him to work for the government. But if he wants to make policy, or thinks Trump should be impeached over his temperament, Anonymous should reveal himself and run for office.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/06/new-york-times-anonymous-op-ed-pushes-electoral-sabotage/

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
465
Views
17
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera

Top Authors