• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
alfaniner said:
I gave minimal thought to it being David Dennison or John Barron, but the lucidity of the article quashed that thought.
Click to expand...

Yes, the quality of the writing says it's not Dump, but he does have speech writers. However, his anger seems genuine - huh, the may be the only thing one could write abouit Dump and use the word "genuine". Bottom line: Not Dump.
 
Last edited:
Are we going to play the parlor game of guessing anonymous? What the hell does "senior official" mean? How many senior officials are there? I'd guess it's name most of us would not recognize.
 
Cain said:
Are we going to play the parlor game of guessing anonymous? What the hell does "senior official" mean? How many senior officials are there? I'd guess it's name most of us would not recognize.
Click to expand...
The appellation "senior official" in this context would probably mean deputy or above (e.g., deputy press secretary, deputy chief of staff, communications director, etc.). Counselors to the President would be included as well.
 
Belz... said:
Better than Washington! Better than Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt x2, etc.

Trump's the best human in history. Best organism in all of the universe! Including bacteria.
Click to expand...

Which reminds me of a joke I just made up.

It's Thanksgiving and the Trump KK (kindred kleptocrats) have gathered for cocktails before the KFC is served. His Royal Orneriness suggests they go out on the South Lawn and shoot protesters through the fence.

Donnie Jr. says, "Great idea dad! It's boring here. Glad you came up with it."
Donnie Sr. replies, "Hey, I can be a fun guy!"
Melania interjects, "Oh, Daddy Warbucks that's funny. You try to teaching me good English and you making the mistake. You and Eric and Junior are fungae. You are a fungus."
 
SezMe said:
I found the comments to that Oe-Ed to just as interesting as the piece itself. Most that I read pointed out that the author is a coward, not a hero, and is not protecting the country as he claims to be doing.
Click to expand...
I think they are wrong. Without adults in the room Trump would have had those immigrant kids killed rather than just abducted.
 
Expert thoughts on the 25th amendment:
The current understanding of the 25th Amendment should be enlarged so as to provide authority to address this problem, through creation of a Presidential Oversight Council empowered to recommend removal of the president on political rather than medical grounds. When both the president's party and the opposing party lose confidence in the president's ability to govern, the council would stand ready to evaluate him and make a recommendation to Congress. Congress would be required to vote on its recommendation.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?utm_term=.62b34cbf8657&noredirect=on
 
Bob001 said:
Expert thoughts on the 25th amendment:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?utm_term=.62b34cbf8657&noredirect=on
Click to expand...

And here I am getting bashed for being the one actually embracing conventional understanding.

He can be removed, under the conventional understanding of the 25th Amendment, if he is incapacitated by mental or physical illness. But there is no obvious solution for a president who has not committed a crime or been disabled by illness, but has lost the confidence of the public because of a failure of temperament, ideology or ability.
Click to expand...
 
Cain said:
Are we going to play the parlor game of guessing anonymous? What the hell does "senior official" mean? How many senior officials are there? I'd guess it's name most of us would not recognize.
Click to expand...

This is going to be a bigger hunt than the one for the Easter Egg in Ready Player One.

I doubt the NYT would publish an anonymous op-ed piece for anyone less than cabinet or family level.
 
Travis said:
I think they are wrong. Without adults in the room Trump would have had those immigrant kids killed rather than just abducted.
Click to expand...

Nah. THey'd have been put up for adoption instead - or possibly sent to a boarding school like we used to do to Native (and some black) Americans. That seems to be the preferred method of genocide among this group.

The Nazi fetishists wouldn't like it, but they'd get over it, unless the kids were given citizenship or something.
 
This "adults in the room" nonsense sounds a lot like Helicopter Parents doing their kid's homework so that the teacher won't realize that he/she can't read -
which works until the test, which in this case would be a national emergency.
 
Last edited:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...rm=2018-09-05T20:54:49&utm_content=edit-promo

Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment is a constitutional mechanism. Mass resignations followed by voluntary testimony to congressional committees are a constitutional mechanism. Overt defiance of presidential authority by the president’s own appointees—now that’s a constitutional crisis.

If the president’s closest advisers believe that he is morally and intellectually unfit for his high office, they have a duty to do their utmost to remove him from it, by the lawful means at hand. That duty may be risky to their careers in government or afterward. But on their first day at work, they swore an oath to defend the Constitution—and there were no “riskiness” exemptions in the text of that oath.
Click to expand...
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Considering the thought and planning he put into his own funeral, perhaps Senator McCain drafted a little extra something that was then placed on The NY Times’s doorstep and tagged: “To Be Opened On The Occasion Of My Death.”
Click to expand...
McCain is milking being dead for all it's worth, but he is/was not a White House official.

I do wonder if the timing of the NYT piece was a coincidence. It seemed to reinforce Bob Woodward's reporting, stretching the scenario into another day of the news cycle.

Interesting here the takes people have on the piece ... at least a couple of anti-Trump posts have called the senior official a coward out for himself, which echoes the views of a Trump supporter. It's hard for me to parse the ethics of the situation; trying to promote public trust while simultaneously undermining the president seems like a contradiction. And also enabling the president in the guise of protecting the union. I'm not sure where I stand - food for thought.
 
Minoosh said:
I do wonder if the timing of the NYT piece was a coincidence. It seemed to reinforce Bob Woodward's reporting, stretching the scenario into another day of the news cycle.
Click to expand...

The New York Times have said that they had the piece before the excerpts from Woodward's book were published.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom