Senior Trump Official Pens Op-Ed in the NYT calling President Amoral

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So my odds on this whole thing are...

a. wholly made up by their editorial board (40% chance)

b. piss tape nevertrump headcase loser Rick Wilson catfishing as a “senior Trump official” (30%)

c. a real person who has admitted the Deep State exists and is actively engaged in sedition against a duly-elected President. (30%)

C is the scary one.

Wow. You really have strong feelings for Rick Wilson. Probably romantic ones, just guessing.

My heart aches for RINOs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So my odds on this whole thing are...

a. wholly made up by their editorial board (40% chance)

b. piss tape nevertrump headcase loser Rick Wilson catfishing as a “senior Trump official” (30%)

c. a real person who has admitted the Deep State exists and is actively engaged in sedition against a duly-elected President. (30%)

C is the scary one.

Deep State here. Your attitude has been noted.

[Anonymous]

interesting - even chris murphy (uber liberal) is stating that the op-ed is not helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how this is clearly keeping liberals up at night, heads exploding. You guys love the speculation! So exciting!

Liberals' heads exploding? Is that why Trump is going batsh-t??

+1 Everytime someone criticizes him, he goes batsh1t crazy. So easy to trigger, which for a POTUS, is dangerous.

I am a liberal and sleep like a baby, because I know I called out all the Trump supporters that I know before this disaster.

[Anonymous]

i hate the term deep state - but there is a group of 'uniparty' institutionalists that hew to the status quo in this town.

Ben Rhodes didn't use the term 'deep state' but he was referring to this set as 'the blob'.

If Bernie was potus, the uniparty institutionalists would be on his butt as well trying to box him in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:interesting - even chris murphy (uber liberal) is stating that the op-ed is not helpful.

Most of us are saying this! The president is stupid and a psycho and the GOP response is to nothing. Ooh, a New York Times op ed about how he’s dangerous but we’re trying really hard to limit the damage? It makes for enertakning theater, but who is this dirtbag loser who knows what a piece of unfit trash trump is and says nothing publicly? It’s not helpful.

[Anonymous]

I was shocked by the anonymous Op Ed in the NYT, not by the unsurprising descriptions of POTUS's behavior, but by the writer's arrogant assumption that s/he is doing "good" by keeping the toddler POTUS from destroying our country.

An honorable person would never work for a criminal like the POTUS, but if this person for some reason believed the toddler would grow up in office, and then realized exactly how dangerous the toddler is, were he/she truly honorable he/she would resign and reveal in public to the world all the terrible behaviors the toddler has exhibited while holding the highest office in our land.

I don't see that this anonymous op-ed adds anything to our national conversation about the POTUS. Bob Woodward's book shows the toddler POTUS in the same terrible light--immature, spiteful, ignorant, narcissistic, impulsive, etc. The anonymous author likely was also a source for Woodward's book.

What's the point, really? If s/he had any spine, s/he would expend her energy getting POTUS impeached and removed or invoking the 25th amendment.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked by anything a Republican does these days. Spineless self-serving cowards, every last one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i hate the term deep state - but there is a group of 'uniparty' institutionalists that hew to the status quo in this town.

Ben Rhodes didn't use the term 'deep state' but he was referring to this set as 'the blob'.

If Bernie was potus, the uniparty institutionalists would be on his butt as well trying to box him in.

In which case thank goodness.
I don't really buy the whole deep state conspiracy but it is true that we have a professional civil service with a lot of institutional knowledge and experience and that does and should temper the impulses of any populist. This is why we are different from most countries and very different from authoritarian states where the ruler puts their minions into all the various govt departments and everybody just does what the ruler wants.
We saw a little of this in the beginning of the administration when there were mass firings at the State Department and we heard lots of stories about foreign governments dealing with the President's children and son in law rather than with career diplomats.
The model that has worked well for the US is to have a highly professional civil service which is paid well and where experience and expertise are valued. Each department has an Inspector General to ensure that ethical standards are adhered to.
There are disadvantages to this especially when people stay beyond their "best by date" but the disadvantages of having a "spoils" system where the ruling party purges government agencies and stuffs sycophants and flunkies in them instead is much worse.

Having said all of this, this is a senior administration official which means they were appointed by the President. This is not a career civil servant but rather a political appointee.

[Anonymous]

My guess is this a narrative from "within" someone on the editorial staff at the NYT posing as an insider. I would give that a better chance than anything else given their disdain for the man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i hate the term deep state - but there is a group of 'uniparty' institutionalists that hew to the status quo in this town.

Ben Rhodes didn't use the term 'deep state' but he was referring to this set as 'the blob'.

If Bernie was potus, the uniparty institutionalists would be on his butt as well trying to box him in.

In which case thank goodness.
I don't really buy the whole deep state conspiracy but it is true that we have a professional civil service with a lot of institutional knowledge and experience and that does and should temper the impulses of any populist. This is why we are different from most countries and very different from authoritarian states where the ruler puts their minions into all the various govt departments and everybody just does what the ruler wants.
We saw a little of this in the beginning of the administration when there were mass firings at the State Department and we heard lots of stories about foreign governments dealing with the President's children and son in law rather than with career diplomats.
The model that has worked well for the US is to have a highly professional civil service which is paid well and where experience and expertise are valued. Each department has an Inspector General to ensure that ethical standards are adhered to.
There are disadvantages to this especially when people stay beyond their "best by date" but the disadvantages of having a "spoils" system where the ruling party purges government agencies and stuffs sycophants and flunkies in them instead is much worse.

Having said all of this, this is a senior administration official which means they were appointed by the President. This is not a career civil servant but rather a political appointee.

were you happy when they were shitting on obama for syria policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is this a narrative from "within" someone on the editorial staff at the NYT posing as an insider. I would give that a better chance than anything else given their disdain for the man.

Why would they bother to lie? Trump is semi-literate, amoral, childish, mean, and possibly in debt to Russian mafia. Gripe about that under your own name or a pseudonym, no need to lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is this a narrative from "within" someone on the editorial staff at the NYT posing as an insider. I would give that a better chance than anything else given their disdain for the man.

That’s a really bad guess. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is this a narrative from "within" someone on the editorial staff at the NYT posing as an insider. I would give that a better chance than anything else given their disdain for the man.

Why would they bother to lie? Trump is semi-literate, amoral, childish, mean, and possibly in debt to Russian mafia. Gripe about that under your own name or a pseudonym, no need to lie.

Same reason as all the other shrill Trump coverage: to create controversy in order to sell their products.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish it was Melania. But it's not.

Be best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a popular tweet by Dan Bloom who is advocating that it is Mike Pence due to language(use of lodestar, which is unusual); mentions senate ties, etc. check it out. I will try to post part here. His username is danbl00m

honestly I cannot square pence's sycophantic behavior toward trump with writing this.

Pence MUST hate DJT however. Pence is very moral majority and obvs the President's personal behavior must be extremely offensive to him.

Also, Trump is well known to goose and generally molest Mother, even as poor Mike looks on.