Of course they will never be options when people decide at the outset that they will never be options. People who quietly work in the background to keep them from being options aren’t your friends.
Ok, so if the oped is accurate, and staff headed off a Presidential direction to withdraw 28,000 U.S. troops from South Korea, that’s still a “comfy pillow” in your opinion?
You may not give a good goddamn about process, but process is the only thing that makes laws and democracy work. If you want to head off this president, then do something legal, not extra-legal. If you want some presidents to have these powers but not the presidents you dislike, you don’t actually believe in democracy.
Subverting democracy because you don’t like the powers the president has is horrific, and it will lead to much worse things than this.
Every political appointee knew exactly who Trump was and what the GOP is, to suddenly find a conscience at this late date is self serving.
This whole line of questioning reminds me of people who say that defense attorneys should actually subvert the law to ensure that guilty people go to jail and that those attorneys are to blame if the people they defend go free and hurt someone. We can’t say “Here is the legal process for me but not for thee.” We will eventually be thee.
That’s pretty meaningless. The “options” people are insisting are the correct ones aren’t viable. I’m sure it’s easy to say “But you never know, they could be viable maybe sorta one day” but that’s not actually productive or helpful.
Look, you’ve basically said two things: one, that subverting a President is a bad thing to do; and two, that the subversion is just window-dressing.
I’m challenging you to defend that it’s just window dressing. You can’t have it both ways, that the subversion is inconsequential and yet very consequential.
This is right. It’s not even that they don’t like the powers that the president has, they just didn’t happen to agree with him on that occasion. They’re telling us about things they think we want to hear, by the way. What else have they done?
None of this is acceptable. All of these people need to end up in court.
The dude in the opinion says it’s just a way to promote things within the administration. It’s a way to make sure the administration gets to do the things the dude wants. I don’t want any of the shit the administration wants, that goes for stuff that this opiner wants and the stuff this opiner is interfering with.
The VERY FACT OF THE SUBVERSION IS VERY CONSEQUENTIAL.
Very nice.
I agree with wonky. I don’t think Donald is fit to pick up my dog’s feces but the way to deal with that is to get him out of office. Random people quietly appointing themselves as the President’s babyminders is tantamount to admitting that our democracy is a failure.
Even if it is a failure?
One thing, though, is that Op Ed piece is pretty vague about what specific types of actions they are taking. He does mention serious concern about trade, but who is he to decide what US trade policy should be? He’s making all this conspiracy stuff about “the Deep State” sound like it’s true. Next thing we know, there really will be a “Q”! :eek:
This is a really excellent point.
My question was absolutely about process. He wanted to kill Assad. Should the process be that
A) President wants something to happen
B) It happens
I sincerely hope that isn’t the process and that sensible people stand in the way of stupid ideas.
The Op-ed does not specify any particular action, so what are you guys so upset about? From my reading the only thing mentioned is pretty vague:
So people should be getting hauled into court for standard issue bureaucratic resistance to a windsock leader?
Well yes, that is a problem isn’t it?
I rather suspect that, like a lot of people have said, it is an arse-covering exercise now. 18 months of wiping Trump’s nose, removing sharp objects from his reach and slapping his hand when tries to annoy the cat is probably very wearisome indeed. I would not rule out a desire from this group for it all to be over and if they can look even a little bit
less culpable then that’s all to the good.
I’m reminded of Veep and the delight of Kent and Ben when they are fired by Jonah, and even as I say that I’m depressed by the fact that Armando Iannucci would not have dared create the real-life Trump.
But Trump was elected, so clearly our democracy has failed. Facing the reality of the situation squarely is the first necessary step toward fixing it.
Sorry for my misinterpretation. Your question was:
-which looked to me like a question about the value of Trump’s “ideas” rather than the implementation of them.
To answer your question, the processes of implementation of various POTUS commands vary depending on the details of which executive entities must be involved, how broad the order is, what sorts of logistics are involved, what sorts of written official statements, EO’s and other documents must be created, etc.
“Kill Assad; kill all the motherfuckers!” lacks the sort of specificity and detail it would need in order to become an actionable order. Mattis would have had to pull the limitations and authorizations from Trump and facilitate the actual records and authorizing documents that would have been required in order to ‘officialize’ the demand into something that could be put into actual effect.
And while that process could be accomplished with reasonable expedition, it’s a process that offers -actually demands- consultation, discussion and persuasion, including selection of options and alternatives.
The fact that Mattis apparently decided persuasion and consultation was a losing proposition and he must instead ignore the orders of POTUS and substitute his own should scare the hell out us. The fact that he did it (if the claim is true) so blithely should scare us even more.
I don’t think Donald’s election is, taken in isolation, an indictment of our democratic process. That is, I don’t think it was accomplished by anything inherent in our democratic process. I think it was accomplished by foreign interference.
One might make the argument that any system capable of foreign interference is a failure, but I’m not sure that I’d agree, given that I think it’s probably impossible to design a system that has no potential for interference.
Well, there is a link to the excerpts from the Woodward book, which I assumed meant the person was validating the Woodward examples. That might be a faulty assumption.