Donald Trump 2018

[Js1 85,436]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Stick with me here . . . if the end game was always SCOTUS seats, tax cuts, immigration reform, etc., why is it so important that DJT is the one in the Oval Office?  Why couldn't it be Pence?

If we're truly to believe that this NYT op-ed is legitimate, then there is a reason 25A has not been invoked.  Somebody tell me that reason isn't "Pence is just as dirty".  Somebody tell me that they aren't dirty all the way down to God knows how far in the chain of succession.

Because the GOP got into bed with a certain segment of the population that turned out to vote for Trump. They benefitted from Trump’s coattails. A milquetoast Pence is not going to get them to show up in 18/20 and keep them in power. The GOP voters like Tahoe will always show up to vote. But they desperately need the VinceWilliamMcCoy voters to show up, because there ain’t enough Tahoes left to keep the traditional GOP in power (or else they wouldn’t have lost to Obama twice). 

[burntorangebongos 10,747]

 

[burntorangebongos 10,747]

Whoever this anonymous is, is describing a coup d'etat. These so called "adults in the room" are ruling the people without a mandate from us at all. This is fucked up and more dangerous than Trump. What is their agenda? What if this is just cover to do more despicable things like separating families at the border and blaming it on Trump? He is their patsy for whatever policy they wish to pursue and they can blame it on him if it is extreme shit that will make the majority of us howl. If these fuckers are going to prop him up so they can continue to pursue their agenda, then they are a shadow government and this is bullshit. The right thing to do is resign en mass to call attention to his unfitness and either send proof and information to the justice department to help impeach him or do whatever to get the 25th amendment process started. Fuck these "adults in the room"!

[hobbes2702 13,048]

22 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Whoever this anonymous is, is describing a coup d'etat. These so called "adults in the room" are ruling the people without a mandate from us at all. This is fucked up and more dangerous than Trump. What is their agenda? What if this is just cover to do more despicable things like separating families at the border and blaming it on Trump? He is their patsy for whatever policy they wish to pursue and they can blame it on him if it is extreme shit that will make the majority of us howl. If these fuckers are going to prop him up so they can continue to pursue their agenda, then they are a shadow government and this is bullshit. The right thing to do is resign en mass to call attention to his unfitness and either send proof and information to the justice department to help impeach him or do whatever to get the 25th amendment process started. Fuck these "adults in the room"!

I tend to agree with most of this. Call attention to the problem in a way that demands a response and action. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,207]

12 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Nothing will sway them.  Nothing.  The man himself could come out and say "I tricked you! This is all an elaborate hoax!" and they wouldn't believe.

The only small sliver of comfort I have is knowing years from now I won't have to justify supporting a treasonous asshole to my kids.  Trumpkins can burn in fucking hell with that weight around their necks.

[Anastasis 23,477]

Minds will be blown when we learn that it was Stephen Miller. 

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

Hmmm.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/putins-friend-had-early-access-to-trumps-infamous-pro-russia-speech?source=twitter&via=desktop

 

Quote

In the morning of April 21, 2016, a staffer at the Center for the National Interest, a Washington D.C., think tank, wandered into the office of Dimitri Simes, the group’s president. 

The staffer saw a pile of papers on the desk titled “FOREIGN POLICY AND DEFENSE OUTLINE.” The staffer realized the papers were the detailed outline, in bullet-pointed paragraphs, of a major foreign policy address that then-candidate Donald Trump was set to deliver six days later as a guest of the center. The staffer used a cellphone to snap pictures of all five pages of the document.

More than two years later, Maria Butina, who once wrote for the center’s magazine and occasionally emailed with Simes, was arrested as an accused Kremlin agent. Subsequently, the person provided the photos to The Daily Beast. The photos’ metadata confirm they were taken on a cellphone in the morning of April 21, 2016. A second former staffer told The Daily Beast that he saw the same documents on Simes’ desk. 

 

 

Quote

The pictures provide new insight into the creation of Trump’s historic foreign policy speech. They also indicate that Simes was closer than previously known to the drafting of that speech. (Jacob Heilbrunn, the editor of the center’s magazine, wrote for Politico shortly after the speech that he didn’t know what was going to be in it. “I was curious as anyone to see what Trump would actually say,” he wrote.)  

Quote

It isn’t unusual for a think tank chief to preview drafts of a speech presented at their invitation. But Simes’ proximity to the speech shows that a person Vladimir Putin once called a “friend and colleague” had an early view into the crafting of a speech that would have historic significance for American foreign policy. Democrats on the House intelligence committee tried to investigate Simes’ relationship to Trump’s campaign, but Republican committee chairman Devin Nunes blocked their efforts. 

Presented with this account and with the pictures of the document, the Center’s executive director, Paul Saunders, declined to comment. Heilbrunn emailed that he did not receive any preview of the speech. Simes did not respond to a request for comment but wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Sept. 5, 2018, that his think tank’s interaction with the Trump campaign had a “small scope.” Michael Glassner, the chief operating officer at Donald J. Trump for President, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. J.D. Gordon, a foreign policy adviser to Trump on the 2016 campaign, told The Daily Beast he was not familiar with the document.

 

Quote

The speech Trump ultimately delivered—a transcript is available here—had some notable differences from the lengthy outline that found its way to Simes’ desk. The document on Simes’ desk listed four main weaknesses in American foreign policy: overstretched resources, an unclear understanding of foreign policy goals, allies afraid they cannot trust the U.S., and the disrespect of rivals.

The speech Trump delivered a week later, on April 27, included one more bullet-pointed weakness: “Our allies are not paying their fair share,” Trump proclaimed. The same concern is detailed in the document from Simes’ desk, but with less prominent billing. It’s a talking point Trump has been hammering for nearly two decades and continues to use in meetings with America’s NATO allies. 

The outline also criticized American intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton administration—a move also criticized by the Kremlin. “Look what happened in the 1990s,” the outline said. “Even after the attacks on the USS Cole and our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, we continued to pursue nation-building in the Balkans. Then we got hit on 9/11, because our leaders were not sufficiently focused on the security of the American people.” 

When Trump delivered his speech a week later, he didn’t mention the Balkans.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

So, he's now throwing Jr. under the bus.  Clockwork.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/405163-trump-downplays-endorsement-of-losing-candidate-in-wyoming-race

 

Quote

President Trump in an interview published Wednesday attempted to downplay his endorsement of a Republican candidate who lost his primary, attributing his embrace of a Wyoming gubernatorial candidate to his son Donald Trump Jr.

Trump touted his track record in primary endorsements during an interview with The Daily Caller and noted that his only defeat to date came when he endorsed Foster Friess on the day of last month's primary in Wyoming.

"I was asked to do that, by my son Don, and I did it, but I did it — I was asked the morning of — and by the time I did it I guess 70 percent, almost 70 percent of the vote was already cast," Trump said.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

HenryHilllookingoutwindshieldathelicopters.jpg

 

https://www.axios.com/tag/inside-the-white-house/

 

Quote

President Trump is not just seething about Bob Woodward. He’s deeply suspicious of much of the government he oversees — from the hordes of folks inside agencies, right up to some of the senior-most political appointees and even some handpicked aides inside his own White House, officials tell Axios.

The big picture: He should be paranoid. In the hours after the New York Times published the anonymous Op-Ed from "a senior official in the Trump administration" trashing the president ("I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration"), two senior administration officials reached out to Axios to say the author stole the words right out of their mouths.

Quote

"I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating — that people seem so shocked that there is a resistance from the inside," one senior official said. "A lot of us [were] wishing we’d been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows — maybe he does? — that there are dozens and dozens of us."

Why it matters: Several senior White House officials have described their roles to us as saving America and the world from this president. 

A good number of current White House officials have privately admitted to us they consider Trump unstable, and at times dangerously slow.

But the really deep concern and contempt, from our experience, has been at the agencies — and particularly in the foreign policy arena.

 

Quote

For some time last year, Trump even carried with him a handwritten list of people suspected to be leakers undermining his agenda.

"He would basically be like, 'We’ve gotta get rid of them. The snakes are everywhere but we’re getting rid of them,'" said a source close to Trump.

Trump would often ask staff whom they thought could be trusted. He often asks the people who work for him what they think about their colleagues, which can be not only be uncomfortable but confusing to Trump: Rival staffers shoot at each other and Trump is left not knowing who to believe.

Quote

Officials describe an increasingly conspiracy-minded president:

"When he was super frustrated about the leaks, he would rail about the 'snakes' in the White House," said a source who has discussed administration leakers with the president.

"Especially early on, when we would be in Roosevelt Room meetings, he would sit down at the table, and get to talking, then turn around to see who was sitting along the walls behind him."

"One day, after one of those meetings, he said, 'Everything that just happened is going to leak. I don’t know any of those people in the room.' ... He was very paranoid about this."

The Times Op-Ed reinforces everything Trump instinctively believes:

That a "Deep State" exists. It's trying to undermine him and — in the case of Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department, in Trump’s mind — is trying to overthrow his presidency.

The Bob Woodward book, Trump believes, exposes that leakers are everywhere — and gunning for him. 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Francisco 2.0

[atomheartbevo 89,735]

He’s draining the swamp of the Deep State...oh

 

[Mo Horn 8,851]

There's the endorsement all politicians are looking for. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Edited September 6, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[DigglerontheHoof 21,204]

6 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

There's the endorsement all politicians are looking for. 

JFC

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[HenryJames 66,132]

42 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

He’s draining the swamp of the Deep State...oh

 

Wow!

[Anastasis 23,477]

[Radical Larry 28,648]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

The best part about the new Deep State is they’re not Obama people.  They’re Trump’s own appointees.

[HenryJames 66,132]

45 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

There's the endorsement all politicians are looking for. 

[Twitter goes dark.]

Voice of Jim Morrison...’This is the end...my only friend, the end.’

[Pam Cummings 9,646]

45 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

There's the endorsement all politicians are looking for. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

“My favorite part was watching the republic crumble right before our eyes.”

[WhatTheBuck 28,788]

8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Stick with me here . . . if the end game was always SCOTUS seats, tax cuts, immigration reform, etc., why is it so important that DJT is the one in the Oval Office?  Why couldn't it be Pence?

If we're truly to believe that this NYT op-ed is legitimate, then there is a reason 25A has not been invoked.  Somebody tell me that reason isn't "Pence is just as dirty".  Somebody tell me that they aren't dirty all the way down to God knows how far in the chain of succession.

I think their only calculation is what keeps them in power. Remove Trump and it makes the Republicans look bad and they'll lose a lot of votes. Even though Pence would help them push their agenda just as well, he'd probably lose reelection just like Ford did. They will only turn on Trump when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Then they'll act like the anonymous author of the NYT op-ed and claim they were resisting him all along. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I don’t see the GOP as a party anymore.  It’s pretty much every man for himself now that everything has been compromised for judges and tax cuts.  A GOP Congressman has two options: warm up to Trumpism or go it alone. Both options suck balls. 

It will remain this way until there is a strong anti-trumpism coalition built inside the Republican Party.  I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I think their only calculation is what keeps them in power. Remove Trump and it makes the Republicans look bad and they'll lose a lot of votes. Even though Pence would help them push their agenda just as well, he'd probably lose reelection just like Ford did. They will only turn on Trump when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Then they'll act like the anonymous author of the NYT op-ed and claim they were resisting him all along. 

Exactly this.   It's pure collaboration.   Notice how the writer of the piece didn't urge people to do the one thing that will actually serve as a real check on Trump — vote Democrat in two months.   Rs made a deal with the devil and are just rationalizing it by disclaiming responsibility for all the bad shit the devil does, as if it's not a package deal. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Fuck them. Any GOP "resisting" from within the White House or Congress needs to sack the fuck up and join with any others who feel the same way and come out publicly. The GOP has had the ability to cut this cancer out at any time, but has chosen to let it metastasize. Trump is on all of them at this point. 

[troph 24,874]

Subverting the direct authority of the President of the United States when you work at the White House is treasonous. The Op-Ed is a coward and should resign. The precedent set by such resistance is far more dangerous than anything Trump is doing.

[DixonHur 11,342]

1 hour ago, Mo Horn said:

There's the endorsement all politicians are looking for. 

Too bad Bin Laden's dead.  I bet he would have given Trump his full endorsement as well.

[InkaUtexas 26,002]

JFC, way to move the goal post there. Who really cares what that little Imp has to say. You decide who I am calling the little imp. 

[troph 24,874]

Impeachment or the 25th amendment are the tools of a resistance that would consider direct insubordination - not subversion and refusal to carry out lawful albeit grossly misguided directives of the President - but removal due to a lack of mental fitness or impeachment and conviction for high crimes. The resistance claims both. To borrow a popular phrase. Just do it.

[TornACL 7,719]

29 minutes ago, troph said:

Subverting the direct authority of the President of the United States when you work at the White House is treasonous. The Op-Ed is a coward and should resign. The precedent set by such resistance is far more dangerous than anything Trump is doing.

As much of a chuckle I'm getting out of this trainwreck of an organization, I tend to agree here. If intentional subversion is deemed the correct course of action, then they should have invoked the 25th Amendment and follow the rule of law.

[kevwun 15,806]

Yes, if you actively have to work against him to save the country from disaster, removal by the mechanisms already in place was the correct course of action.  Those who chose to follow this party first path are just as guilty as Trump.

[horncyclist 1,391]

What's really crazy is there are now at least two scandals possibly undsurpassed in history: (1) collusion with Russia to get elected (2) soft coup within the administration.

[WhatTheBuck 28,788]

35 minutes ago, troph said:

Impeachment or the 25th amendment are the tools of a resistance that would consider direct insubordination - not subversion and refusal to carry out lawful albeit grossly misguided directives of the President - but removal due to a lack of mental fitness or impeachment and conviction for high crimes. The resistance claims both. To borrow a popular phrase. Just do it.

"Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

Here’s a contrarian position: A lot of democracy relies on and assumes decent people.  Maybe this is part of it.  

 

The cries of treason assume robot-like adherence to a hierarchy.  I don’t think the framers intended to design a system that prevents and criminalizes the exercise of independent (and correct) thought. Every person — particularly politically appointed people — have the ability to exercise their soft power however they see fit within the bounds of criminal statutes.  That’s why they were selected by that administration.  Because of their judgment.  Not as mindless drones.    

The truth of this is even more apparent once they go public about it in the way they have.    This is the way this administration works. Hold us accountable at the polls as necessary. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

5 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

"Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

They do. They believe in getting conservative activist judges installed and are willing to sacrifice everything else to achieve it. 

[troph 24,874]

Follow the law is not a robot like action. When the line is bright emotion and human fallibility are not excuses. You take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution - either you do or you don’t.

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

How about do the right thing?  Did that thought ever cross their brains?  No?  String em up with the others.

[troph 24,874]

"Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

Exactly. Noisy resignation, impeachment or lack of mental fitness. If you believe enough in the resistance to publish the piece then realize the sacrifice required and do it.

[BrickHorn 18,239]

16 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

They do. They believe in getting conservative activist judges installed and are willing to sacrifice everything else to achieve it. 

Only the GOP is brave enough to stand up and declare “No more gay cakes.”

[BradInATX 9,208]

I'm not really looking to debate whether or not these people should be held up as heroes for "subverting" Trump or for being an internal resistance or whatever. However, I'm not sure that I buy the notion that what they're doing is dangerous or a threat to democracy, as I don't think they're doing any sort of real active subversion. 

From what I've read what they're doing is as simple as hiding papers from him, assuming he'll forget about them and move on to something else. Or distracting him with a shiny object when he's on some sort of impulse tangent about god knows what. 

This hits close to home as I used to work as CxO for a small company, and the CEO was very similar to Trump. He would make very rash, snap decisions based either on some sort of emotional impulse, or the last person he talked to. I'm talking shifting company direction overnight type stuff. Our go-to move was basically to ignore these types of directives for 48 hours or so. If he came back to them, it was obvious they were important to him, and we'd do them. But he rarely did. We avoided two situations that were in legal gray area and definitely unethical by doing that.

I don't really see that as destroying the rules of how corporations are supposed to work, or creating any sort of leadership crisis. While I don't hold these people up as heroes or anything, I'm not sure that I agree that what they're doing is setting bad precedent for democracy. It's not like they're actively telling the president to fuck off. They're just distracting him from stupidity with shiny objects for long enough for him to move on to whatever his next stupid whim is. If whatever he was doing was that important, they wouldn't be able to move him off of it by hiding some papers or throwing a squeaky ball to distract him.

Edited September 6, 2018 by BradInATX

[troph 24,874]

Subverting private company decisions is a fireable offense - you’d hardly disagree, correct? That’s the consequence and barring breaking the law it’s the only consequence.

 

Overlay an oath - thereby creating a legal obligation - on the actions of these officials. Senior WH officials - they are now under legal obligations. The situation is now vastly different.

 

So your example is not analogous.

 

I actually think their methods are cowardly and wrong. I think noisy resignation is the easiest path and what should be done.

 

[Chuckie Finster 22,702]

A shadow government run by unelected officials with Trump as the face is basically the only thing worse than an outright Trump presidency.  

[retread 2,951]

54 minutes ago, TornACL said:

As much of a chuckle I'm getting out of this trainwreck of an organization, I tend to agree here. If intentional subversion is deemed the correct course of action, then they should have invoked the 25th Amendment and follow the rule of law.

14 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How about do the right thing?  Did that thought ever cross their brains?  No?  String em up with the others.

^ the 25th amendment and impeachment are there for a reason. If you're discussing the possibility of using the 25th among yourselves, then it may well be time to use it.

 

[Upgrayedd 5,815]

The thing you need to understand here is her emails 

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, troph said:

Subverting private company decisions is a fireable offense - you’d hardly disagree, correct?

Overlay an oath - thereby creating a legal obligation - on the actions of these officials. Senior WH officials - they are now under legal obligations.

So your example is not analogous.

I actually think their methods are cowardly and wrong. I think noisy resignation is the easiest path and what should be done.

 

It's definitely a fire-able offense, both in the public and private sector. But fire-able and "crisis-creating" are two different things, just as speeding and murder are both quite different, though both illegal. I'm not willing to hang them out for ruining democracy for distracting a buffoon  long enough for him to forget about whatever stupid thing he was doing.

Whether they should come forward and public is a totally different story. They should, but it's possible they assume that outing him as completely unfit for office wouldn't be enough to get him out, and they're probably right. So I can see their thinking. In ranked order I'd prefer 1) Them outing him publicly, 2) them doing what they're doing 3) them doing nothing. But if my choices are 2 and 3, it's 2 all day.

[Chad Fuck 17,686]

10 hours ago, Lobo said:

Why was Pence allowed to watch a movie about Asian women after 5:00p? 

Because he thought it was about Asian men?

[BradInATX 9,208]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

It's definitely a fire-able offense, both in the public and private sector. But fire-able and "crisis-creating" are two different things, just as speeding and murder are both quite different, though both illegal. I'm not willing to hang them out for ruining democracy for distracting a buffoon  long enough for him to forget about whatever stupid thing he was doing.

Whether they should come forward and public is a totally different story. They should, but it's possible they assume that outing him as completely unfit for office wouldn't be enough to get him out, and they're probably right. So I can see their thinking. In ranked order I'd prefer 1) Them outing him publicly, 2) them doing what they're doing 3) them doing nothing. But if my choices are 2 and 3, it's 2 all day.

All that being said, I agree with those who think it was absolutely stupid for them to come out and tell Trump and the world how they are gaming him. If you're going to do it, STFU and do it. The NY times piece seems like it's self-fellatio at best, but more likely a political play for power or self-preservation.

[troph 24,874]

^ the 25th amendment and impeachment are there for a reason. If you're discussing the possibility of using the 25th among yourselves, then it may well be time to use it.
 

Winner winner chicken dinner

[Brisketexan 105,161]

And people are right to say that the word could have been planted to throw off the scent. But the rest of the piece is so hubristic and utterly bereft of self-awareness...

This. Bozo’s observations here have been spot-on. It’s awfully congratulatory to the n-th degree, with zero self-awareness.

 

Agree that an intel guy like him or Dan Coats would drop "lodestar" to shift attention to Pence, who is dirty and complicit.

The use of a standout term like that, easily traceable to a particular potential author, looks like classic misdirection to me.

 

Whoever this anonymous is, is describing a coup d'etat. These so called "adults in the room" are ruling the people without a mandate from us at all. This is fucked up and more dangerous than Trump. What is their agenda? What if this is just cover to do more despicable things like separating families at the border and blaming it on Trump? He is their patsy for whatever policy they wish to pursue and they can blame it on him if it is extreme shit that will make the majority of us howl. If these fuckers are going to prop him up so they can continue to pursue their agenda, then they are a shadow government and this is bullshit. The right thing to do is resign en mass to call attention to his unfitness and either send proof and information to the justice department to help impeach him or do whatever to get the 25th amendment process started. Fuck these "adults in the room"!

I tend to think this way. BUT...we’re living in a world where this is actually the BETTER option than an unchecked Trump presidency. And it’s a really, really shitty option.

 

Fuck them. Any GOP "resisting" from within the White House or Congress needs to sack the fuck up and join with any others who feel the same way and come out publicly. The GOP has had the ability to cut this cancer out at any time, but has chosen to let it metastasize. Trump is on all of them at this point. 

Quite simply, they still have put loyalty to themselves and their agenda above loyalty to the Republic. Loyalty to the Republic means you sacrifice yourself to save it. We haven’t seen that yet. From anyone.

 

Subverting the direct authority of the President of the United States when you work at the White House is treasonous. The Op-Ed is a coward and should resign. The precedent set by such resistance is far more dangerous than anything Trump is doing.

Yes, maybe. See my thoughts above.

 

 

Exactly. Noisy resignation, impeachment or lack of mental fitness. If you believe enough in the resistance to publish the piece then realize the sacrifice required and do it.

 

I’ll get back to this - I had a long conversation recently with someone plugged in at the State Department. He’s close with several officials who have quietly resigned. I asked him “why the fuck don’t they do a noisy resignation?” and in short, he explained that their loyalty to hierarchy and protocol is VERY strong and VERY hard to overcome.

 

Fundamentally, a noisy resignation, to them, is something you do when we have what amounts to a Failed State. I suggested that the right acts could keep us from BECOMING a failed state. We shouldn’t count on anyone doing that.

 

Like I said, nobody is coming to save us. Nobody. We jumped out of the plane with no chute at 40,000 feet. We’re just at 20,000 feet. We can REALLY see the ground now, so our situation is getting REALLY fucking real. But we’re still falling. We still have no chute. And the only people who could save us - the GOP jumpmasters falling next to us - are absolutely unwilling to look out for anyone but themselves.

 

20,000 feet and falling at terminal velocity. It ends in a splat. There is no soft landing.

 

 

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

Just now, BradInATX said:

I'm not really looking to debate whether or not these people should be held up as heroes for "subverting" Trump or for being an internal resistance or whatever. However, I'm not sure that I buy the notion that what they're doing is dangerous or a threat to democracy, as I don't think they're doing any sort of real active subversion. 

From what I've read what they're doing is as simple as hiding papers from him, assuming he'll forget about them and move on to something else. Or distracting him with a shiny object when he's on some sort of impulse tangent about god knows what. 

This hits close to home as I used to work as CxO for a small company, and the CEO was very similar to Trump. He would make very rash, snap decisions based either on some sort of emotional impulse, or the last person he talked to. I'm talking shifting company direction overnight type stuff. Our go-to move was basically to ignore these types of directives for 48 hours or so. If he came back to them, it was obvious they were important to him, and we'd do them. But he rarely did. We avoided two situations that were in legal gray area and definitely unethical by doing that.

I don't really see that as destroying the rules of how corporations are supposed to work, or creating any sort of leadership crisis. While I don't hold these people up as heroes or anything, I'm not sure that I agree that what they're doing is setting bad precedent for democracy. It's not like they're actively telling the president to fuck off. They're just distracting him from stupidity with shiny objects for long enough for him to move on to whatever his next stupid whim is.

I'm really torn on this.  I'm of about five minds on it.

1) From a constitutional and democratic standpoint, Troph is exactly right.  The President is the constitutional head of the executive branch, and his orders must be followed (unless they are illegal orders, as may be the case with respect to an assassination of Assad).  

But beyond the constitutionalist issue, there's the simple matter of democratic legitimacy.  The people elected Donald Trump.  They didn't elect Jim Mattis or John Kelly or Mike Pompeo or any of these other guys in the West Wing.  They elected Donald Trump.  And they should face the consequences of that action.

And perhaps only by facing the consequences of that action will they realize what a bad decision that was.  Insulating the people from those consequences only offers to ensure that they make the same mistake again.  And by doing that, you're not helping the people or the Republic.

2) Buuuuuuut . . . and I can't emphasize this enough . . . I'm one of the people, and I don't want to feel the consequences of having Donald Trump as president.  Because aside from all the bullshit, the consequences could very conceivably involve nuclear hellfire.  And if that's what we're talking about, then the whole "make the people face the consequences so they don't do it again" thinking kind of evaporates.  You can let the kid touch the hot stove so that he learns not to touch a hot stove again; you can't sit and watch as a kid douses himself in gasoline and starts playing with matches.

3) But there's a way to kick the matches out of the kid's hands and throw him in the shower to wash the gasoline off--impeachment and conviction.  And to the extent you're preventing that from happening, you're not helping.  You're letting the kid sit there covered in gasoline and trying to distract him with another toy.  And so that may prevent the self-immolation.  But it's not remedying the imminent danger of the kid being covered in gasoline.

Fucking throw that kid in the shower and give him a good scolding.

4) Buuuuuuut . . . you can't do that.  And we all know that.  Because--and here's where the ultimate blame lies in this entire debacle, which must not be forgotten--the Republicans in Congress won't actually impeach and convict Trump.  They're not going to do anything to hold him accountable or otherwise rein him in.  

So knowing that you can't take the gasoline-soaked toddler and toss him into the shower and give him a good scolding, what do you do?  If giving him a new (nonflammable) toy to play with in hopes of distracting him is the best you can do, isn't that what should be done?

5) But dammit--this shit aint right.  We have an illegitimate government, elected by nobody and apparently not accountable to anybody.  Judging from the announcement that it is going to violate a court order on the baby jails, we also have an outlaw government.  

Yeah--we have an illegitimate outlaw administration.  In the United States.  And if that's the case--and according to the people inside the administration itself, it is--we're rapidly approaching the point (if we haven't reached it already) at which revolution becomes not just permissible, but obligatory.