Someone from Trump's inner circle wrote an op ed in NYT, saying what Never Trumpers and others have said for 2 years? What will happen in the next 90 days? Will GOP Congress investigate?
If I were Trump he has to know this is someone of a group of his people that he knows has opposed his actions so it’s not hard to start wth that group and meet one on one with each one of the suspects and let them all know, one at a time, if they don’t give up who this is he will start firing them until the guy gives himself up or they tell him who it is and get each one on record recorded denying it’s him/her or that they know who it is.
These type of people don’t want to lose a job like they have in this administration because of what one coward did - they will give him up or eventually he’ll be fired with the whole group, one at a time. And then replace the slugs with good people.
There are no lengths to which the Democrats, Republican Never Trumpers, the media and the swamp will go to get rid of Trump and keep him from completing more campaign promises (which will be fulfilled by Pence anyway if he were gone so that’s a feeble wish on their part). They have gone from spending millions to create a totally false dossier to books that are no less made up and now this coward and the NYT - the only people who will vote based on these lies are brainless TDSers while thinking people can see right through the ruses and what the left is trying to do - it won’t work to anyone’s advantage but Trump just like everything they pulled on him during his campaign didn’t work but actually got him elected because people are sick of the old predictable career politicians who could care less about the country above themselves.
Hi La Veezta,
Without taking issue with your comment - yet, let me ask you a 'what if' question.
If, and I know that is a big "if," the allegations in the -anonymous Op-ed, (by the way, I don't like the thought of this "anonymous Op-ed either), are true. Would you still feel they were a "slug?"
Just my opinion, but when one takes a job like that, within a specific administration and under a specific president, one owes loyalty to the president and administration. It can be rationalized, of course, as being "for the good of the people", but so can giving military secrets to foreign nations or selling secret manufacturing processes to a competitor.
Your comparisons are apt Wilderness, but let's put this to the point of the discussion, not comparable generalizations.
Specifically concerning the Op-ed allegations, and specifically concerning the good of our nation, how would you answer the question put to La Veezta?
Is your bar for owed loyalty unconditional? If you cannot meet that bar, is your only ethical recourse resignation - consequences be damned? Or, would you consider a higher loyalty to country?
Oh, I wouldn't rule out a higher loyalty. I just believe that gripes about the boss are at least 10,000 to one to be pretty much unfounded and as much the fault of the employee as anyone else. Add in political belief/affiliation and that number will grow.
Compare the number of valid whistle blowers in the country vs the number of people complaining about their job or boss (approximately the number of people with a job).
There have been some important whistles blown. Not all! On this, time will tell.
Have there? Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of claims, but so far not a single one has held water when it comes to Trump himself. Hot air, delivered in a shrill scream, but no proven facts.
Whew, that "higher loyalty" thing was a relief Wilderness.
Although I won't completely dismiss the Op-ed piece, I do see the potential reality of your point. I think the answer will be a matter of degrees.
The worst case scenario, (for the president), would be if the author is unmasked, and turns out to be a Trump supporter that believes in the president's goals, but ...
Or, best for the president, the author turns out to be as you have described.
My bets are that the author will eventually be identified. Sooner rather than later I think.
I have heard pundits talking about the irony that NYT journalists will be working overtime to find a name that their Op-ed dept. already knows. I also think we can be sure it won't be just NYT reporters looking.
A matter of degree? Perhaps. But my money is on someone unhappy with their job that is taking small matters and blowing them into mountains in a concerted effort to degrade the presidency.
We shall see.
Along these lines..."Boris", from CBS, in his short commentary today, said that he disagreed with a great deal of what Obama did, but it never crossed his mind to try and get a job in Obama's administration for the purpose of sabotaging Obama's actions in the name of the country.
I truly think it would take a particularly strong "twist" to justify that kind of action, and that no truly honest person would do it.
When I was 32 I went to a psychologist because I feared being alone at night and had panic attacks. He told me that I have a tendency to defy authority when I feel justified. So every time something like this comes up I think about the diagnosis. I really paid attention to James Comey's fiasco. I am dying to know who did it.
While the writer could be mentally unbalanced, I think it more likely that (s)he has fallen in with the current idea that anything - anything at all - that harms Donald Trump or his plans (whether useful or not, good or bad) is justified. Add in the tremendous partisan divisiveness and the increasingly uncivil actions from people all over the country, and you have the perfect recipe for this kind of thing.
You got me bud, I don't know where that one came from. Is there an opinion somewhere that the "anonymous" did that?
Just like you GA to ignore everything that is important about this and focus on only word that I say which has nothing to do with whatever he/she says being true or not. You can’t stick to the facts but want to make an issue out of me calling him a name which is what he/she is but has absolutely nothing to do with your “if” proposal. The person is proof of the existence of a deep state, unelected officials who seek to control the government no matter what the voters want. Here this explains it best
Now maybe you can try for once to not divert attention from the real issues to a word someone uses, but from what I’ve seen of your ilk, fat chance of that happening!
Nothing in that op ed is fact and if you really think this slug could be considered a hero you haven’t been paying any attention to what Trump has done and is doing for the country. I know it would pain your ilk GA to listen to today’s Rush Limbaugh show but maybe you could hold your nose And listen to 5 minutes of it starting from right here
https://youtu.be/AnTXjM1W0mc?t=2244 (this video is supposed to start at 37:25 if it doesn’t open there start at 37:25)
- you will learn something. Then start from the beginning and listen to the whole thing, it could change your life to get the honest perspective on what’s going on.
What the hell is wrong with you La Veezta? Are you afraid to discuss any issue? Are you afraid to interact with anyone that isn't a member of your choir.
You post in a political forum, so get used to having your partisan perspective challenged. Is "ilk" your favorite word? Are you so tribal that you stay on automatic attack mode?
If you think you have a valid opinion or perspective, then why aren't you willing to defend it?
You are the one that is missing the point! I was not picking on your use of the word "slug" I was using your word to convey the same concept you intended when you used it.
I have the impression that I was probably listening to Limbaugh before you were out of school, (and if I am wrong about that, the inference is even more denigrating), so your attempt to prove your "rightness" by offering one of his perspectives as validation falls way short of accomplishing its goal.
I didn't focus "on one word," I focused on one concept. And then proposed an alternative consideration to see if that would affect your perspective. And look how you responded. Geesh.
From the content of your posts, you would be better served to look at some facts yourself then worry about whether or not I am ignoring them.
It could have been so simple. You simply address the question with something like, there is no way your "if" could be true, or no, it wouldn't change my mind, or who gives a hoot, but instead you jump on your horse and shout "Ilk!" Ilk!"
You don't offer an opinion of your own, just a youtube video that speaks to your perspective. Chalk one up for you, right?
Get used to it La Veezta, you aren't getting a free ride. Stand up for what you think, defend what you say, or get used to being challenged for having no more substance than a partisan talking-points band member.
Oh hell, now look what you made me do. I channeled Trump, (but at least I was a more polite one).
What is wrong with me? That’s a joke, again just what I’d expect from your ilk.
You have replied to only two of my comments which were discussions of the issues and in both cases you chose to ignore the substance I presented and you pick on my use of one word, “ilk” the first time and “slug” the second time without adding anything to the discussion I had just contributed to with substance. Anyone can look back, and I wish they would, and see that what I am saying is the truth and what you are saying about me is nothing but a lie and attack on me because I have demonstrated exactly what your ilk is like!
You should quit being so petty and get with the program.
"ilk" again La Veezta? I am beginning to wonder if "ilk" might be some kind of Extreme Right Dog whistle, or Code word. At the least, its repeated use certainly feels threatening.
Maybe this is what microaggressions feel like. I just come here for friendly conversations, not to be attacked. I have never been called an "ilk" before, why are you picking on me?
Do you have a problem with people of non-color? Or is "ilk" your code word for reverse racism, or an indicator of misandry, or philogyny?
I am not sure what "program" you are talking about, but somehow I don't think I would feel safe there.
Yeah, tell GA to take off his petty word police hat and if he can’t discuss or put his attention on the substance of what I say to go play his word games with someone else. If you pay attention, his ilk are only good at ignoring anything they disagree with and immediately try to divert attention to the person presenting it or some other subject...it’s so transparent a tactic cause he doesn’t do it with just me. His problem is he can’t stand being called out on it.
Maybe you should be careful what you ask for La Veezta,
I will be glad to discuss the issues - without any "word police" or "word games."
Starting from the beginning. Do you understand the perception of a comment that uses broad generalizations that are assumed to be truthful representations - just because you believe them to be so?
"Ilk" - do you stop to consider how folks reading your comment would interpret ilk? I cannot think of any positive connotations related to its use. It seems to always be used as a negative inference. So right off the bat, you are making a condemnation, without offering any support for your thought. You seem to think just saying "ilk" says it all. Point made game over.
I will presumptuously say that I think that it is only your choir members that would agree with that perspective. Other folks are wondering what you mean by "ilk."
In our first exchange you quickly labeled my ilk, but in subsequent exchanges your presumptions were proven wrong. I didn't call you a racist, or any of those other things you said you "expected" from my "ilk."
So you were wrong. But defended being wrong by using my ilk as support. Would you accept that from someone else?
Then there is my petty pickiness of your use of "slug."
Here was my pettiness:
Which was preceded by your use of "slug."
"they will give him up or eventually he’ll be fired with the whole group, one at a time. And then replace the slugs with good people."
As you can see, I wasn't picking on your use of "slug," I was merely using your word to convey the same meaning you intended when you used it.
Of course you chose to attack me rather than answer the question, but where in my response did you see me picking on your use of the word. And why do you think my asking if you could consider another perspective to the issue you were discussing was ignoring the substance of your comment?
From the above copy and paste of one of our exchanges - where did I ignore the substance of your comment? It look like I addressed it correctly - from my perspective.
Can you answer any of these counter charges, any of the substance of this response, without dismissing it as just more blather from my ilk?
Time to stand up La Veezta, put some substance where your opinion stands. Can you offer anything more than dismissive attacks?
Pick a point of substance from your comments. Any point. I would be glad to discuss it with you.
ps. I hope you saw my reply to Diane regarding those two faux comments I made about feeling attacked or needing a safe place. I can't be sure if their impact wasn't comparable to Big Bang's Sheldon's Ba Zinga! in your understanding, so I thought I would point out their true intent just in case.
pps. Feel free to "call me out" on any issue point you feel comfortable with, I promise to respond seriously, without any inference of word police, or word games.
There are also people of my "ilk" slinking around. Beware. Why don't you take your own advice and stop talking to someone who isn't making sense?
If you decide to visit knitting forums, there are some patterns that seem to require a Masters degree in some math beyond my realm of comprehension. They are just as aggravating .
Good one Jean, but I am taking my own advice - I am considering the source. In my exchanges with La Veezta I am just choosing to not allow choir session to be free of cost.
If you want to participate, you have to be prepared to support your singing. There are plenty of Left or Right choir rooms on the Net, my mission - which I have accepted - is to make sure HP forums aren't one of them.
GA you are probably younger than me. My advice is to ignore those who try to push your buttons. Some people LOVE to push buttons. When I see some names, I quickly go to the next.. What if you are engaging a troll? This could be someone from your past who knows all of the buttons to push. I am as serious as a heart attack about this.
An ex may be trying to make your blood pressure rise or make you have a heart attack or cause you to go blind with rage. Just talk to us homies.
I try to Diane, but some people are mean to me. I am going to find a safe place where I don't have to worry about being attacked. Maybe a cooking forum orknitting one.
Whatever you do, do a good job. I don't know where you can go to avoid being attacked. It is definitely not on social media.
Diane, due to my perception of your sincerity on these forums, I am going to give you a break for not noticing. (that is better than admitting my attempts at humorous sarcasm failed miserably), the intent of those two responses.
Neither my "attacked" comment, nor my "safe place" one were serious. I will be responding to La veezta later. You can catch the details then.
But, you do have me a bit worried. Given your experience viewing my past forum participations, that you can think those two comments were serious is worrisome for me.
GA I bypass many of the comments where people go back and forth because I don't want to get stressed. Sometimes I miss the good ones!. Now I will have to go back to determine those of which you speak. I'll get back to you. If you will forgive me, I will do better in the future.
Good for you for starting what should be a simple, straight-forward grown-up conversation, and good for you for a call to get along. We have to accept the fact that not everyone wants or is able to get along in a grownup conversation, but some do, so good for you again!
Dang! How did you make that smiley face? I want to do one.
What is wrong with America right now is that we love to debate. I think the thing about social media is that you can do it and not get fired ... ugh unless you are Alex Jones. Thank you for your encouragement and perspective!
Re smiley, I can't answer, it just did it when I typed the keyboard symbols.
Re debate, it's kind of fun to give thinking skills a good work out and study out how to communicate points without emotional venting...though I've been guilty. Also, a grownup respectful debate can give participants and listeners some tremendous growth in their thinking skills, it can inspire in surprising ways, and it can bring people together for problem solving even if they do not agree on every point. It's the ugly stuff that too many have come to love that is a curious curiosity. I can't understand dumbing ourselves down.
We have to be careful with the written word. Careful about making assumptions re intent when we've heard no voice inflection, careful to remember that word usage can be tricky for both writer and reader, and careful to give the benefit of the doubt as much as possible when reading others' points of view.
We can learn a lot from listening to others, even if we don't agree with what we've learned. I would love for Steve Bannon to have been engaged at the New Yorker forum. Often we learn the "why" of others which might help us in dealing with them.
Sure, Diane. We can all get along. I'm a liberal Democrat living in a very conservative part of a red state, and I have many friends here. The type of discussion that goes on in these forums, however, is in no way representative of our country. It merely reinforces our worst instincts. I came here to look at your question and try and answer thoughtfully, but when I look at the discussion that is going and see the level of it, I just wonder why anyone would want to spend time and energy doing that.
One good reason to do that is to come across a statement like "The type of discussion that goes on in these forums, however, is in no way representative of our country." So appreciate seeing this comment! The truth is we can get along, but it is easier if we do not let media news/entertainers whip us up into an unthinking frenzy.
I understand. I often take a break or bypass some discussions altogether.
La Veetza, just to be clear, your profile does not lend you any credibility on Hubpages, in fact, it makes you look like the typical troll. 0 hubs, 0 followers, following 1. And by your own admission, you don't intend to write on this website.
Come on MizBejabbers, not you too!
What if La Veezta only joined Hubpages for the forums? Is that really a negative?
I have searched around for other political issues forums - because I enjoy forum discussions - and have joined a couple, but, always return to HP because of the tone of the forums.
I stopped publishing on HP a couple years ago. My only participation on HP now is the forums. Does that make me a troll too?
Why can't the forums be viewed as a draw in themselves, rather than article publishing being a requirement' for validity?
I think you are wrong on this perspective. And even worse than wrong, I think it is a self-righteous perspective. Kind of like those recent discussions about usernames and hub count as validations of perspective. I say baloney!.
GA and Diane, but you do write, or have written, hubs on this website (GA 46, Diane 59 articles, and I have read some of your contributions). READ HER PROFILE! This person says she does not write on this website because "WE ARE TOO LIBERAL!" First time I've ever heard GA or Diane called Liberal. She says she is appalled by our "lack of integrity, honesty and reasoning ability demonstrated by a handful of the usual brainwashed suspects that frequent the forum and write left wing articles full of misinformation, lies and hate...."
That is a self-description of a troll. If she changes her mind and starts contributing something other than trolling, that will be different. I'm just sick of trolls interrupting the flow of regular Forum discussions.
If you look at the list of political discussion boards, this place actually mimics a radical right wing conspiracy site such as breitbart or Alex Jones which is unfortunate because it jeopardizes the reputation of HP:
Search is cracking down on the 'fake conspiracy propaganda' nonsense as it should have long ago and have already removed Alex Jones which is a great start:
Jake, I have looked around at other political discussion boards, and my experience has been that HP is almost a Cajun gumbo of moderate to extreme participants from most parts of the spectrum. I find a nice balance of participants.
I certainly would not compare it to Breitbart or Alex Jones-type forums.
Actually GA, if you check the political discussion boards which include several crazy fictional topics, the exact kind that search is finally weeding out and discarding, a case could be made that they are much worse than breitbart or Alex Jones:
How could a false ridiculous discussion asking the question if John McCain was a traitor or patriot, or asking if it's okay to be a racist and there are many more, stand in a legitimate site?
These are the exact types of conspiracy garbage boards that search is cracking down on because it's fake Russian style trash, just like Bozo Trump:
There is nowhere for us to go with this Jake. We are too far apart.
For instance, I think the "Why is it okay to be racist?" topic was a very informative one with serious perspectives posted from both sides of the issue. That you seem to deride it as a Breitbart or Alex Jones-type topic, (merely because of the title?), doesn't offer me any hope that we could discuss it.
Of course there's nowhere for us to go with this GA because you are still one of the last remaining conservative Trump fans and many of the crazy right wing conspiracy topics are just that, and they've been settled long ago for instance, there is no debate about racism, it's rampant under unhinged Bozo Trump who enables nazis and despite the ridiculous nonsense spewed from clowns like Sean Hammity and Tucker 'creepy bowtie' Carlson, racism is an absolute abomination and of course only caucasians can be racist and that's a fact, so asking if racism is okay is just a phony discussion:
Just like the appalling discussion asking the fake question if John McCain was a traitor or hero, an answer to which everyone who lives here in the united States knows and there's also a discussion calling CNN fake news which once again is phony because everyone who watches understands CNN is a legitimate news source despite what disgraceful Bozo Clown in the oval office claims, he's nuts and a danger to our nation according to Yale and Harvard psychiatric experts and scores of other professionals who actually sent a letter to congress warning us about him, but unfortunately some of his most gullible fans still don't get it yet and that's just dangerous for our collapsing country as Bob Woodward re-affrims:
There are many other examples of this breitbart, Alex Jones type of garbage that could absolutely jeopardize the standing of HP because with that kind of junk giving HP a reputation for delivering untrue radical right wing nonsense, combined with the apparent crackdown on that kind of junk, HP's reputation for 'quality' could be compromised:
Hi Dianetrotter, I don't see anything that would prompt a GOP, or any Congress, investigation.
What do you think warrants investigation?
If people are indeed saying things to Woodard and leaking information, it should not be ignored. Today he should have been honoring the sheriffs? He went into a tirade about the op-ed. Did he ever acknowledge them for ... whatever? Tillerson has not denied calling him an f*ng moron. Mattias says he has understanding of a 4th or 5th grader. The fact that someone had to take a paper off his desk to keep him from signing it because it was about South Korea and our troops. If people really think he has problems, the matter should not be neglected. You can sometimes get good advice from a fool.
GA, needed to add, he is not a young man. My mom was diagnosed with Ahlzheimers when she was 64. He eats poorly and doesn't sleep much. The way you eat and live impact your mental factions.
That thought is a bit farther than I am willing to go Diane.
72 is not young GA. I am not even 70 and have arthritis from head to toe, literally! I also have other maladies that become more serious as I age. I don't eat Big Macs or junk food every day and, while overweight, I'm not obese. Age impacts everyone. Trump is clearly aged. You must admit that he acts bizarre often and without abandon.
Now hold on Diane, speak for yourself. 72 is not ancient. I am only a few years away and feel just past middle-aged myself. With no major health issues either. (except for a couple my wife rants about - like selective hearing) ;-)
If these allegations are true, would we be looking at a 25th Amendment situation? The problem with too much loyalty to one man is that it could endanger the nation. Truth is the big question, and that goes beyond conservatism or liberalism.
GOP Congress cannot say he is not irrational. They had an immigration deal and then they didn't. There were bad people on both sides/no there were not/yes there were bad people on both sides. I think Putin is driving Trump insane. He has a way of getting to people with gasses and stuff.
How does his age compare with the average, or the maximum, of past presidents? And if those presidents were more than a decade or two ago, what effect has modern medicine had on the elderly's ability to perform?
Does Trump act "bizarre and without abandon (presume you mean WITH abandon" or does he act "bizarre and with abandon when compared to the typical politician in DC while we struggle to understand what his goals are"? Those terms are relatives, not absolutes, and given the number of people cheering him on with N Korea (for instance) it's hard to say that his name calling and threats were bizarre OR with abandon. I know I've seen such behavior very often in the workplace...it is the norm for many people outside the diplomatic ranks of politicians.
sorry about that - mean with reckless abandon. Of course medicine has improved; however, you've see two (2) doctors that he had give bootleg results.
You men (unless you are different) hate to go to the doctor. Men are known for that! You also get lost because you can't follow directions. Wilderness, if you use GPS, great!
If he does have medical issues, are people using him to get their agenda through? Who is taking care of his health. I know his kids want him to be well. I just don't get the "We are doing it for the good of the people." It's a little narcissistic. Some bets are Dan Coats, Larry Kudlow, Mike Pompeo or a Hassett guy. I would die if it is Sarah Huckabee.
I would be shocked if it were Sarah. Knowing her background, I don't think she would have her own agenda to push through. I think she is sincere in whatever she does, whether one agrees with her or not.
After the "troll" thread the other day I've tried to understand why some people just enjoy posting and reading threads. I guess that would be true if they weren't so contentious. I realize that depending on the nature of certain forums, anonymous people could be looking for information on a new subject and not yet feel comfortable posting yet. I still don't think I would bother unless it was a part of a site, like HP. But everyone's different.
I am looking forward to Woodward's book. I considered Sarah for the Op-Ed too, but decided against it. It appears the person used language that pointed to several others, to muddy the waters. I still don't believe it's part of a Deep State crazy conspiracy and that there is a cabal of people trying to run the country instead of letting Trump do it. I believe it's someone who knows the same thing we've all read from countless authors, it's someone who believes they are protecting the country from at least a few ill thought out acts Trump considered during one of his tantrums.
It's cowardly to write an Op-Ed of that nature and hide your identity. I believe the person should step down. I would guess they are already near retirement anyway
GA, are you referring to me in regards to my comments the other day about people who don't write here but post nasty things on the forums? It's OK if you are. The bigger issue for me was that the person attacked me for never writing anything of substance. Since I have a large body of work, which has been considerably trimmed down, I do take my writing seriously.
I've thought it over and I guess some people do enjoy forums. They can be a good way of sharing ideas in some cases.
Hi Jean, I wasn't referring to you. My reference was primarily to an exchange between Randy Godwin and another poster, (Onusurus(sp?)), which was joined by My Esoteric.
I think we already had an exchange over the comment you are referring to, and I think I said something like you should never feel threatened or attacked just by words in a comment.
It's an interesting scenario, Diane. I suspect any number of his inner circle could be responsible. Some people are suggesting Pence himself did it. But I'm thinking perhaps one of the generals did this - Kelly, McMasters, or Maddix - the tone strikes me as kind of what a military person would say: "there are adults in the room."
In any case, I mainly visit your forums Diane because they are always interesting and Hubbers such as you, GA, Wilderness, etc., keep it lively. Now, everybody tell me I'm wrong.
Tim you are not wrong. I love you input. You keep it pretty lively yourself. We have a reality show going on. Yesterday, we started a game show, "Who is the Rat?" I hope the person has lawyered up. As soon as the person is revealed, a team of professionals will be needed.
If this were a person of conviction they would step forward and let Congress handle their concerns. It is apparent the president has the last say so to speak. If this person has such dire concerns he needs to step up to the plate for the countries sake. I say he is acting a coward... No opinion on will Congress investigate. They need to have some proof of a problem to investigate not an anonymous article. They should if the person steps up with their complaint. It's discouraging to see that anyone can say anything about anyone without some form of proof. This is what we have become?
The republican congress cowards are AWOL because they just like phony christian Jerry Falwell Junior and Bozo Trump, have made a compact with the devil to receive what they believe are good things for them here on Earth in exchange for their rotting souls at a later date:
We can never rule out the distinct possibility that republicans in congress have been compromised by Vladimir Putin just like Bozo Trump appears to be:
Somewhat relieved to receive what appears to be conformation from patriots at high levels who are trying to 'buffer' and temper Bozo's mentally unhinged madness, a madness which is totally unnecessary if congress would just obey their oaths and constitutional laws and just toss this orange fool from our premises before it's too late:
But then again, I think deep down inside we all had a feeling there had to be patriotic heroes residing in the burning white house who are doing everything they possibly can to mitigate the insanity from within:
People are suggesting that Putin has something on Lindsay Graham.
What else could possibly explain drunky Lindsey Graham's unlawful failure to hold Trump accountable for his insane actions and his complicity with Bozo Trump's admiration for our greatest foreign enemy Vladimir Putin:
This applies to many other potentially compromised, cowardly republican congress-persons including con man Paul Ryan and decrepit Mitch McConnell: A deep blue progressive wave in November will wash this unholiest of republican cesspools clean:
Can't respond Jake you have gone way off subject?
At first I wasn't thinking "coward" but now, maybe. I wonder, if the person knew all of this controvery would develop, another course or none could have been chosen. It is pretty arrogant for an anonymous person to say, "Don't worry! I have things under control."
Diane, yes it is arrogant. If this person is concerned about the president's decision making due to not being stable of mind he should step up and report this to Congress so they could take immediate action. If half of what this person claims is in any fashion true we the citizens have a right to know the truth, and president Trump has the right if untrue to be exonerated from such allegations. I see he has asked the DOJ to investigate the article. Hopefully, the DOJ will do their job.
This stuff is sounding a little bit like Roman Empire history revisited, with the exception no knives have been used, yet.
If anyone wants a good laugh, this wikipedia page shows the nicknames 45 has given people. Some are so funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n … nald_Trump
How many died in Puerto Rico? 16? 67? 2,+++? Why is this important?
Isht just got real! What could Paul Manafort possibly have to offer? Looks like his time is going to be combined. By the time the investigation and resolution are over he will have completed his time.
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
To me, someone who is retired military may be a hero in this situation.The key here seems to be the Constitution and obey the orders of the President "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
As I'm sure most of us know, most military members, especially higher-ups take this vow very seriously. Someone who feels like they must protect the Constitution and the Code of Military Justice by disobeying unlawful orders may be feeling out how current military leaders think about this, as ultimately, they would likely to be the ones to decide if said orders were unlawful.
There could be more specifics to come about unlawful orders coming down from Trump. Kelly or Mattis testing the waters? Maybe this is fantasy, but with all the conspiracy theories out there that are seen as credible these days, I figure I'll join the party.
Since Trump took office, the question in the back of my mind has always been, "How long until some generals feel like they have a duty to do something?" It doesn't have to be a classic military coup, but it would come down to what the top brass think.
Or it's all just the "Deep State". Lol, which is crazier?
https://ips-dc.org/americans-ever-back- … tary-coup/
Would Americans Ever Back a U.S. Military Coup?
We simply do not know that a person from the Presidential staff wrote the op ed. One can choose to believe it is from a staffer because the idea fits their personal view of President Trump, but for all we know President Trump himself is behind it, using it as a smokescreen for something we know nothing about.
Another possibility is that a typically dishonest reporter has created the piece and is using it for the media's agenda. Perhaps the NYT knows this, perhaps they don't, but we only know that this has been many reporter's and publication's self-promotion tactic in the past. If I remember right, several politicians are known for the same tactic.
If an anonymous writer from the White House is truly behind it, well, there are enough old sayings about anonymous writers attacking other people to tell us they have discredited themselves and their message even if any or all of what they write is true.
A few words on anonymous letter writers:
1. Coward. If something needs to be done about something then be brave enough to at least get the ball rolling in a manner that will be helpful and not further cloud the something. If a person is too fearful to do that, then they should simply find something else to do.
2. Jealous. Envious people are always dangerous. Anonymous envy is an angry display that will either go forward in a cowardly manner or go forward in a more dangerous manner, not caring who they hurt in the process.
3. Deceitful. What anonymous says in a letter may or may not be truthful, but they are dishonest, casting suspicion on a narrow group of other people and making weak-minded people think these others all agree with the attack.
More could be added, of course, but the less focus on an anonymous letter there is the better off everyone is in the end, whether we agree or disagree with the topic. Recently, I've been thinking about the truth behind the fact that when someone tells me something about a situation, the only thing I know is what I was told. Whether what I was told is accurate or inaccurate is up for grabs. The need is wisdom no matter what others say since the something may or it may not be true.
Great points! Last sentence is the real deal. So now we know the info that someone thinks is critical. What are we supposed to do about it? The person wants us to relax because adults are in the room. If that is the case, why write an article to the world telling us that we don't have to worry.
Well, we don't actually know "info that someone thinks is critical" because we have no idea who wrote it or the truth about any angle on it. It really smacks of those opposing his policies trying to sound like someone who supports his policies but not him personally.
White House officials flagged Trump's behavior to psychiatrist last year
White House officials reached out to a noted Yale University psychiatrist last fall out of concern over President Trump’s increasingly erratic behavior.
Dr. Bandy Lee, who edited the best-selling book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” told the Daily News Thursday the staffers contacted her because the President was “scaring” them.
Lee briefed a dozen lawmakers from the House and Senate last December about Trump's fitness to be President.
A pair of West Wing representatives contacted her two separate times on the same day because they believed the President was “unraveling.”
Around the same time, a Trump family friend emailed her over concern for his mental health.
"I had not mentioned this before because I did not want to confuse my role as an educator to the public,” Lee said when pressed about why she did not speak out sooner. “I thought I would be more effective by retaining my public role than getting involved in either the treatment of those who were feeling scared or in the actual intervention with the President.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … story.html
I read that. There are so many books out now and I fear that everyone is just cashing in--on both sides. Most of them say the same things. I am interested in Woodward and what he has to say, what reader wouldn't be? And I like Malcolm Nance, he knows so much about National Security. But my "book" bills are getting expensive, lol.
Just one of my crazy thoughts...could it be several people? Or, could it be that one or more people asked a speech writer to compose the op-ed for him/her/them, so they could technically say they didn't write it?
All that said, my money is on Kellyanne Conway.
I was thinking a group got together too! I hadn't thought of the speech writer angle. George Conway surely speaks his mind. Surely Kellyanne has to realize that there is no "alternative truth."
I thought about Kelley Anne, too. But I'm betting it was a joint venture. I've listened to Kelley anne, sometimes she stumbles over her own words. But she can be quite eloquent at times. I'm not sure if she does understand "alternative facts" Wouldn't it be interesting if this op-ed is the only fake news that has real consequences. Be careful what you shout for years and years.
The anonymous letter should not have been printed. It is treasonous. Stop buying the N Y Times.
In reality, here's a perfect example of what many legal experts consider treason:
Statistics reveal Bozo Trump seems to attract the less educated voter and even they are leaving the republican party because of him, so It's not surprising Trump Fans are not familiar with the actual definition of treason so here it is: The patriot who published the letter via the NY Times which informs the world of the unprecedented level of code red emergency our oval office is experiencing, is a hero and has broken no laws according to experts:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
45 does confuse loyalty to himself with loyalty to the US. I never thought I would cheer for Jeff Sessions. He is hanging tough. I'm wondering if he will tell 45 he won't do it or will just keep quiet.
Mr. Magoo is actually a pretty funny name for him and it fits!
We are friends with Russia. we need to get along with Russia. What in the world is wrong with that?
Please enlighten me. I need to know what is wrong with getting along with Putin. I am truly confused on this issue. Hillary's emails disappeared. HER evidence of collusion is GONE. There was no collusion on the part of Trump.
Can't we just let this stupid issue GO!
I suggest you do some research on Putin. Just a warning; it's not pretty. He's been undermining European democracies for some time now, eyeing the chance to regain former breakaway countries such as Ukraine, Latvia, and Estonia. On top of that, anyone who speaks out against him have a mysterious way of dropping dead from poison or shootings (that includes journalists and pro-democracy candidates. He's also seemingly become a hero among white nationalists in Europe and America. He's no friend to democracy to state it succinctly.
Oh good grief is right. I suppose you would have supported "getting along" with Hitler back in the day?
Exhibit A for how a corrupt, lying POS remains in the oval office: the indifferent, uninformed electorate.
Vladimir Putin’s special brand of evil
You have described Putin very well. Although is it smart to cut off diplomatic relationships with him. Just Last week it was announced China and Russia will be combining their troops for "war games". "Washington Post - Moscow said the weeklong Vostok (East) 2018 maneuvers will span vast expanses of Siberia and the Far East, the Arctic and the Pacific Oceans and involve nearly 300,000 Russian troops — nearly one-third of the country’s 1-million-strong military. They will feature more than 1,000 aircraft, about 36,000 tanks, and other military vehicles and 80 warships."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu … 4955689d7e
Question worth repeating:
"Although, is it smart to cut off diplomatic relationships with him (Putin)?"
We can't afford to not deal with him on some judicious level. He should not be allowed to manipulate our country. He kills his enemies. I was a child in elementary school when we had drills every week to prepare for an attack from Kruschev (msp?)
Yes, our school even had a fallout shelter and we practiced drills, Diane, even under Ronald.
If our president is a Putin puppet, which I hope is not the case, then we should take action to remove him if the evidence holds up. But I wonder if the American values many claim to support are worth dying for? Or is it a matter of if their man is in Office?
When justice becomes conditional, then no one will receive any.
Our President, if he committed a crime, deserves the full weight of the law thrown against him. Maybe that's what frightens many of his supporters - fear of Putin - instead of respect for our democratic principles.
We should negotiate with Putin and China, but not if it means compromising what Americans fought to have.
Very well said Diane. I too remember those drills...
Why is it treason?
How does NYT determine what to print?
Yes, I supposed Common Sense by Thomas Paine was treasonous as well. We our loyal not to a King but to the Constitution. It's like a president pardoning himself - that's a set up for tyranny.
The whole purpose of including "freedom of the press" in the Constitution was to prevent tyrants from taking over.
I'm not saying DJT is one of those potential dictators (I wish him the best), but if his mental or physical condition is deteriorating, we have a right to know and remove him from the Office of President.
Go N.Y. Times and anyone else who can shine light on the situation.
The president was elected by the majority and this should be respected. We should not be promoting civil war. If the president is doing illegal things the congress and the powers put in place within the government will check them. Not one little sneaky individual claiming to be working behind the scenes.
... and how do we even know this individual is actually a political leader within the Whitehouse????
I think the Times is just stirring up readership.
No one speaking of civil war - we are talking about Constitutional rights. The president's feet doesn't have to be kissed. But his loyal supporters will follow him to you-know-where. I noticed the fact that I mentioned "freedom of the press" was completely ignored. Perhaps, this is because there is a fundamental misunderstanding, by some people, on how our "republic" functions. Skillful people like Trump will manipulate that lack of knowledge.
By the way, the N.Y. Times doesn't have to stir up readership. Look that up.
Of course, they are not as successful as they were once - but on the verge of failing - not happening.
He was not elected by a majority. Clinton got more votes.
I agree Congress should do its job and remove him if he is unfit for office or got elected illegally.
But if he is unfit or elected illegally, and Congress doesn't act, then civil war is justified.
Otherwise, we are bowing to a dictatorship.
It's sad how Congress is paralyzed because people thing they won't be elected. They need to have more faith in their constituents. Polls indicate that more people plan to vote/have registered to vote in this election than prior non-presidential elections.
This Manafort flip will be interesting to watch.
"We can never rule out the distinct possibility that republicans in congress have been compromised by Vladimir Putin just like (XXXX) Trump appears to be."
I'll be interested to see who Jake will support in the future for POTUS.
Better be a perfect ANGEL!
Maybe he should run. He must be one, (a perfect halo-wearing angel.)
This despicable, disgraceful retarded remark about our great American war heroes was enough for millions to simply discard this poor excuse:
Bozo Trump will be gone very soon if we still have laws and thank God for that, and whomever I support for president in the near future to attempt another miracle by reassembling the broken pieces of what's remaining of this crumbled country will certainly not be anything even close to Bozo Trump who is obviously a mentally ill, Russian poodle who is sabotaging our healthcare, undermining our intelligence agencies, disgraces himself and this country by insulting great american heroes and our law enforcement, nor will he or she perform evil acts as Trump does such as endorsing alleged child molesters for U.S. senate:
These are the facts and how his last remaining fans can possibly still support him is an indicator of the eroding character of this ailing nation or, perhaps it's simply a severe case of "TWD" "Trump Worship Disorder":
According to J A K E:
TRUMP IS ...
1. mentally ill
2 sabotaging healthcare
3. undermining intelligence agencies
4. insulting great american hero (s ?)
5. insulting law enforcement
6. endorsing alleged child molesters for U.S. senate.
6. "Democrats refusal to give even one vote for massive Tax Cuts is why we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama. We need his vote on stopping crime, illegal immigration, Border Wall, Military, Pro Life, V.A., Judges 2nd Amendment and more. No to Jones, a Pelosi/Schumer Puppet!"
1. "It’s entirely possible that he simply has certain personal qualities we don’t find ideal in a leader, like being a narcissistic bully who lacks basic civility and common courtesies. That he is, in a word, a jerk. But that alone does not make him mentally unfit to serve."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/opin … y-ill.html
2. " President Donald Trump’s administration is unconstitutionally seeking to undermine Obamacare by failing to faithfully execute the healthcare law."
- failing to execute an unconstitutional Healthcare Insurance law.
At the risk of offending a whole trunk-load of fake democrats , It is worth mentioning that Manafort's "deal " pretty much ends the whole Trump Russia Collusion investigation and snaps Trump Resistors right into a general panic ,..............New President ? In 2024 and not Tomorrow.....................?
by Kenna McHugh 3 years ago
The US adds robust 263K jobs; unemployment at a 49-year low at 3.6%April's jobs report showed that solid economic growth is still encouraging strong hiring nearly a decade into the economy's recovery. https://on.wgrz.com/2VaiP9b
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one of Trump's distractions to take the heat off of him and Jeff Sessions for...
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
The FBI just re-opened the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal - will it tip the election against her?In a letter to Congress, FBI Director James Comey revealed that the bureau has learned of more e-mails connected to the investigation being discovered. The rumors are that e-mails from the illegal...
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Michael Flynn is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General who has just resigned for lying to VP Mike Pence about his conversations with Putin concerning lifting sanctions. He is also the one who at the GOP convention rallied Trump supporters to shout "lock her up" about...
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
Just breaking Matt Lauer fired by NBC News for inappropriate behavior.
by Readmikenow 6 weeks ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|