Donald Trump 2018

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Political play or self-preservation is exactly what it is. The most significant thing about it is that someone in a significant White House position thinks it's time for those last ditch cards to be thrown on the table. It's the first glimmer of hope that enough people might be seeing the emperor is wearing no clothes. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

13 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

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

Meh, we always knew this is how this administration would run.  It's not like Trump is some legislative or foreign policy wonk. 

The important thing to remember is IT'S TRUMP's SHADOW GOVERNMENT.  He appointed them, he can fire them. It's on him. 

The best people. 

[atomheartbevo 89403]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

The NY times piece seems like it's self-fellatio at best, but more likely a political play for power or self-preservation.

If you wanted to ramp up his paranoia even more, when it’s already ramped up by Woodward’s book, and cause him to do something foolish, that op-ed would be one way. 

Maybe he starts firing people, putting him into some sort of conflict with Congress,

Maybe he pulls a Howard Hughes and spends even more time in the Devil’s Workshop. 

[troph 24562]

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.

I can see your point - to an extent - re speeding vs murder. However, there is only one unlawful act - violating the oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. So comparing different unlawful acts also doesn’t work. The more proper analysis is to ask is this broken law more like a traffic violation or the killing of a person - speeding 2 over or 50 over in a school zone at 3pm or self defense or intentional murder. And before we get to bogged down in analogies the kicker for me is this Op-Ed claims they considered the 25th amendment but didn’t want to invoke a constitutional crisis - so instead they engaged in subversion - the extent of which we honestly don’t know. Their thinking is completely backward and therefore they must be held accountable. They should be outed and fired or they should do the lawful thing and resign at a minimum.

[lemonlime 5503]

And what happens when they're fired for the fireable offense?

And this isn't a business. It's about the most powerful person on Earth who has the nuclear arsenal at his disposal

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[troph 24562]

And what happens when they're fired for the fireable offense?

And this isn't a business. It's about the most powerful person on Earth who has the nuclear arsenal at his disposal

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

There is no evidence I’m aware of that the shiny object used to divert his attention was used to divert his attention away from the red button.

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

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.

This is pretty much verbatim how I feel about the whole thing.

Your point #3 is the linchpin of the whole thing, IMO. If we were operating under normal circumstances, then I think your entire chain of logic above stops at #1. He was duly elected, he's the boss. But when the legal, normal route of removing someone unfit is pulled completely off the table due to politics, then the entire system of checks and balances topples. And we're left with a shit load of gray area and a lot of "but, but, but" with no real answers like you've laid above. None of it is great, and you'll have a lot of people who only see in black and white who entrench themselves in one of the positions you've laid out above. But for those who can deal with and comprehend nuance, they all kinda suck.

Well said.

Edited September 6, 2018 by BradInATX

[suddenly shaggy 929]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

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?

If the parents won't wash the gasoline off the child, you call Child Protective Services and have the kid taken away.

In this situation, that would be get as many like minded individuals together as you can and go public with specific allegations. Very public and very detailed. Anything less and they are betraying their oath to the Constitution. 

[Brisketexan 104548]

GOLL’s 5th point is spot-on, and the most gulp-inducing.

We have a cracked up illegitimate government that would look at home in any bassackwards banana republic. In that case, revolution of some sort (note that this doesn’t necessarily mean armed insurrection) may move from optional to obligatory.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If you wanted to ramp up his paranoia even more, when it’s already ramped up by Woodward’s book, and cause him to do something foolish, that op-ed would be one way. 

Maybe he starts firing people, putting him into some sort of conflict with Congress,

Maybe he pulls a Howard Hughes and spends even more time in the Devil’s Workshop. 

It seems like a similar thing is going on with Putin's inner circle in Russia. 

A lot of mistrust and suspicion is being planted in the media.  

Except Putin has a different way of dealing with his traitors. 

 

[Chad Fuck 17551]

Esquire opinion nails it on NYT anonymous op-ed:  "Just shut up and quit."

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22998786/anonymous-trump-white-house-op-ed-new-york-times/

[Brisketexan 104548]

There is no evidence I’m aware of that the shiny object used to divert his attention was used to divert his attention away from the red button.

He reportedly wanted to first-strike the DPRK. He wanted to assassinate the leader of a close Russian ally.

He was absolutely fucking around in the vicinity of the red button, and taking steps that could put it in play.

The survival of humanity is literally at risk here. That is not hyperbole.

This is pretty much verbatim how I feel about the whole thing.
Your point #3 is the linchpin of the whole thing, IMO. If we were operating under normal circumstances, then I think your entire chain of logic above stops at #1. He was duly elected, he's the boss. But when the legal, normal route of removing someone unfit is pulled completely off the table due to politics, then the entire system of checks and balances topples. And we're left with a shit load of gray area and a lot of "but, but, but" with no real answers like you've laid above. None of it is great, and you'll have a lot of people who only see in black and white who entrench themselves in one of the positions you've laid out above. But for those who can deal with and comprehend nuance, they all kinda suck.
Well said.

The simplest way to put it is that our republic does have a failsafe....but due to the GOP Congress, the failsafe has failed. There is no backup.

20,000 feet, falling at terminal velocity. Anyone looking down knows how this ends.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I don't really have a problem with people in the administration responding to this crisis by trying to slow-play dangerous shit ordered by the president.   That's a rational moral choice, particularly if you keep it quiet to avoid detection.   I do have a problem with the public, self-congratulatory rationalization in this article.  If you're going to speak out, urge impeachment or the 25th — and, especially, voting for the opposition in the coming elections.   Not "stay calm everyone, the steady state has this on lock to deliver awesome tax cuts and deregulation while doing our best to minimize the damage from the insane boy-king."   This is how collaborators have always rationalized what they are doing. 

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't really have a problem with people in the administration responding to this crisis by trying to slow-play dangerous shit ordered by the president.   That's a rational moral choice, particularly if you keep it quiet to avoid detection.   I do have a problem with the public, self-congratulatory rationalization in this article.  If you're going to speak out, urge impeachment or the 25th — and, especially, voting for the opposition in the coming elections.   

Yep. I don't think the article moved us any closer to impeachment. But it is going to make him less likely to listen to the sane people around him, and more likely to start to act unilaterally.

In my personal example with the ex-CEO, the VP of Marketing quit in a huff, told him that everyone basically ignored him hoping that his stupid whims would pass. CEO went apeshit, made a couple of emotional, rash decisions, which drove off the company's biggest client. Half the company, myself included, quit. About a year later the company got sued by their second largest client for something stupid the CEO did, and they went bankrupt. 

There was no upside to the play of publishing this article, except personally for the author. Fuck him or her right in their self-serving face. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by BradInATX

[troph 24562]

GOLL’s 5th point is spot-on, and the most gulp-inducing.

We have a cracked up illegitimate government that would look at home in any bassackwards banana republic. In that case, revolution of some sort (note that this doesn’t necessarily mean armed insurrection) may move from optional to obligatory.

Then the constitutional crisis is here as I indicated. Revolution is a crisis. But the Op-Ed claims invoking the constitutional mechanism would be that crisis.

It’s critically important for us to be intellectually honest here.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

27 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

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.  

We also have to look at the people holding the GOP back from conviction.  The Trump supporters.  If it were politically favorable for the GOP to remove Trump, I have no doubt they would act. If Trump’s approval among Republicans was in the 20% range he would be gone with the quickness.

As a nation, I don’t think we’ve ever been on the losing side international political warfare, on our homeland.

Perhaps we’re experiencing it now and we haven’t even acknowledged the problem yet.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[BradInATX 9208]

8 minutes ago, troph said:

 

Then the constitutional crisis is here as I indicated. Revolution is a crisis. But the Op-Ed claims invoking the constitutional mechanism would be that crisis.

It’s critically important for us to be intellectually honest here.
 

 

Let me ask you this, to approach it from another direction.

Let's say Obama, or either Bush, or Clinton had given his staff some sort of directive that he believed to be an important and correct decision. And let's say the staffer ignored it because they disagreed with it. What do you think the president would have done - 1) fired the staffer and demanded that his order be carried out or 2) already have forgotten about whatever the order he gave yesterday was, and moved on to whatever other stupid shiny toy of the day caught his fancy?

If there were a competent president in office, a cabinet member blowing him off for 24 hours wouldn't stop the president's order from happening. The fact that Trump never circles back and demands his order be carried out means one of a few possibilities:

1) He changed his mind
2) He just says shit he doesn't mean from day-to-day based on whichever way the wind is blowing, and doesn't really intend for it to be carried out
3) He's unfit for office
4) He already forgot about it, which I think would circle back to #3

In any of those situations, I don't think blowing him off for 24 hours (or however long) creates any sort of crisis. His "directives" aren't real things. If they were, he would fire people until they got done, as is his right. 

I just don't see the "crisis". If it were a normal, competent president, then perhaps we'd be talking a silent coup. But this isn't that.

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by BradInATX

[jimmyjazz 45544]

I think there are two separate issues here:

1.  the anonymity of op-ed itself.  It is at best a weak way to get out the message.

2.  the content of the op-ed.  I don't think anyone stealing documents off the President's desk, etc. suffers under the delusion that they're not flaunting the law.  They know.  It's their choice, and it's morally defensible, if legally indefensible.  And that's what good men (and women) do in times of crisis.  I see it as no different than refusing to follow illegal or outrageous orders issued by a superior rank in the military.  Such decisions are not made without clear knowledge of potential consequences.  They do it anyway, consequences be damned.

I suspect the "bad actors" in this case have made the decision that it is better for the Republic to flaunt the President's wishes than to simply resign and wait for his appointment of the next men up who may NOT be trusted to act in the best interests of the country.

That said, I get it -- if 25A has been discussed, it's clearly time.  That's a legitimate alternative, if not wholly radical itself.

[troph 24562]

I’m a pretty strong proponent of upholding the oath. I don’t have party affiliation like most and I’ll answer your question this way - if the person subverting the orders of the president believes it’s worth of exposure in an Op-Ed in the NYT and the NYT believes it’s publish worthy without a name disclosed then we aren’t talking about diverting a toy from a kid, we’re talking big time subversion.

Analogies are great when they apply and help us understand a hard to grasp idea. This one isn’t. Op-Ed claims a crisis if they were to act, they didn’t act and threw a holy fit in the press. Either they are deranged lunatics or we have a major violation of the oath.

If it’s the latter and you are okay with it - you the surly collective as a proxy for the American people - then call that what it is - a soft coup, and temporary non-violent revolution and more bluntly - a constitutional crisis.

If this is child’s play then don’t publish. I’m afraid it’s not. So I’m inclined to see it for the crisis it is.

[troph 24562]

I support their moral position to oppose the President. Let me make that abundantly clear.

[Longhorn94 2427]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He reportedly wanted to first-strike the DPRK. He wanted to assassinate the leader of a close Russian ally.

He was absolutely fucking around in the vicinity of the red button, and taking steps that could put it in play.

The survival of humanity is literally at risk here. That is not hyperbole.


The simplest way to put it is that our republic does have a failsafe....but due to the GOP Congress, the failsafe has failed. There is no backup.

20,000 feet, falling at terminal velocity. Anyone looking down knows how this ends.

how?

[Js1 85095]

Of course he didn’t, it would have said “Donald Trump is an ancient Egyptian grain silo and therefore cannot be President. Which token black guy am I? Am I the 9-9-9 guy?”

[NWBuck 8547]

Interesting take from the LA Times: No, anonymous Trump official, you're not 'part of the resistance.' You're a coward'

I've also talked with folks who see this as the "yeah, but" from the GOP. "See... we're not all bad! Some of us were working to keep the Republic in tact!".

Nope. Still complicit.

[woohorn 1131]

Figured it was Don McGahn because it comes right after Drumpf "fired" McGahn by tweet and because he is pretty indispensable until Kavanaugh is confirmed.

How has he been eliminated by everyone?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

9 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

how?

Tears, blood, and destruction.

It’s only a question of body count.

[retread 2951]

38 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We also have to look at the people holding the GOP back from conviction.  The Trump supporters.  If it were politically favorable for the GOP to remove Trump, I have no doubt they would act. If Trump’s approval among Republicans was in the 20% range he would be gone with the quickness.

As a nation, I don’t think we’ve ever been on the losing side international political warfare, on our homeland.

Perhaps we’re experiencing it now and we haven’t even acknowledged the problem yet.

We've discussed this some. The R poll support is certainly one aspect, but, as has been posited on here, the level of corruption on the R side in Congress may run so deep that there would never be a scenario where they would turn over that rock and impeach DOTUS.

[Brisketexan 104548]

17 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

how?

[Longhorn94 2427]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

haha

 

no, seriously. how do you see this ending?

[Ghost of LL 15473]

15 minutes ago, woohorn said:

Figured it was Don McGahn because it comes right after Drumpf "fired" McGahn by tweet and because he is pretty indispensable until Kavanaugh is confirmed.

How has he been eliminated by everyone?

I think McGahn would have signed it.  He has nothing to lose, since he's already been fired.

[Guest Lobo]

The three books of late, the Op-Ed, the dissenting interviews, the departed officials who turn around and say, "See, I told you so..."

All of it wouldn't bother him nearly as much as one simple sign put in his face (via twitter or a banner outside the White House or what have you)...

"You are not wealthy nor successful.  Statistically speaking, just 10% of Americans like you.  The future of this nation fell on the shoulders of an average, average man."

He'd commit ritualistic Hari Kari within hours.  Probably using something weird, but he'd still do it.  

 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

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.

 

[Js1 85095]

Wooooh more fake powers under the guise of “national security”

 

[Brisketexan 104548]

37 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

If there were a competent president in office, a cabinet member blowing him off for 24 hours wouldn't stop the president's order from happening. The fact that Trump never circles back and demands his order be carried out means one of a few possibilities:

1) He changed his mind
2) He just says shit he doesn't mean from day-to-day based on whichever way the wind is blowing, and doesn't really intend for it to be carried out
3) He's unfit for office
4) He already forgot about it, which I think would circle back to #3

In any of those situations, I don't think blowing him off for 24 hours (or however long) creates any sort of crisis. His "directives" aren't real things. If they were, he would fire people until they got done, as is his right. 

I just don't see the "crisis". If it were a normal, competent president, then perhaps we'd be talking a silent coup. But this isn't that.

I have seen (both in real-time, and in the post-mortem) entities/enterprises that were led by a similarly deranged and mercurial POS.

Having the minions slow-play a directive for a period of time is standard.  And in those cases, possibilities 2-4 are what are most often in play.  "Yeah, he told us to order $500 pink jumpsuits for all employees because he saw a bit on them on the morning news...just sit on that directive, he'll forget all about it by lunchtime."  If it was a REAL CEO, he'd follow up on it within a day or two -- and it wouldn't just be a barked directive, it would have rationale: "Have we placed that order?  We really need those -- our current jumpsuits aren't hi-visibility, and OSHA is really stepping up enforcement on that issue.  And, remember, we had a guy hit by a truck last month -- we need to pay more attention to safety."  It would take 30 seconds.  It would sound sane, rational, and most any underling would hear that and make it happen.

Here, we have a man who is incompetent on truly every level.  He does not have the temperament for the job.  He doesn't have the intellect to grasp the issues of the job. He doesn't have the morality to put the right priorities (Republic first, Trump after) on the job.  He is a sociopath (he truly does not care at all about any person other than himself).  He has a terrible memory.  He refuses to learn new information.  He cannot put information into context.  And I could keep going.  I wouldn't hire Trump to be in charge of gathering eggs from my chicken coop.

The crisis is that 1) we have that kind of person in office, and 2) the way we've decided to deal with that is extra-constitutionally, because 3) the criminal cabal (the GOP) in charge refuses to use the available constitutional mechanisms of the 25th amendment or impeachment.  That's a triple-decker club sandwich of "We're Fucked."

[Ghost of LL 15473]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Wooooh more fake powers under the guise of “national security”

 

Well, we should have hearings.

[Brisketexan 104548]

6 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

haha

 

no, seriously. how do you see this ending?

I'm going to be honest here -- I don't think I've allowed myself to think to the ultimate end game, for the sake of my mental health.

I can't rule out risks like nuclear war started on a rash impulse (or set in motion by a rash impulse).  I can't rule out a "praetorian guard" action -- someone inside sees us plummeting towards the unacceptable and inconceivable (e.g., nuclear war), and takes out the POTUS.  I see him taking things multiple steps too far, and we the people simply rise up (the revolution GOLL speaks of) -- that could look like a simple national strike/blockade (and I mean just that -- a mass of people taking to the streets, blocking highways, runways, everything)...inevitably descending into violence by gov't forces against the people.  I see our government falling into such disarray that an enemy strikes while we are unable to react -- take out our power grids, etc.  I could keep going.  But I won't.  I don't want to.

[HenryJames 65886]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, we should have hearings.

In the name of freedom.

[Brisketexan 104548]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, we should have hearings.

....about her emails.

They will be about her emails.

[HenryJames 65886]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I'm going to be honest here -- I don't think I've allowed myself to think to the ultimate end game, for the sake of my mental health.

I can't rule out risks like nuclear war started on a rash impulse (or set in motion by a rash impulse).  I can't rule out a "praetorian guard" action -- someone inside sees us plummeting towards the unacceptable and inconceivable (e.g., nuclear war), and takes out the POTUS.  I see him taking things multiple steps too far, and we the people simply rise up (the revolution GOLL speaks of) -- that could look like a simple national strike/blockade (and I mean just that -- a mass of people taking to the streets, blocking highways, runways, everything)...inevitably descending into violence by gov't forces against the people.  I see our government falling into such disarray that an enemy strikes while we are unable to react -- take out our power grids, etc.  I could keep going.  But I won't.  I don't want to.

[SameSame 1692]

 

[Brisketexan 104548]

Just now, HenryJames said:

Yeah, I mean....or that.

[Brisketexan 104548]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

The real answer is to impeach Trump and then remove him from office that way.  Congress has to do its job

And equally real answer of what is likely to save us:

 

[Ghost of LL 15473]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'll be honest here--I've laughed about Brisket's seeming hyperbole along with everyone else.  I've laughed at him to his face about it.

I'm not laughing today.

Think about this--the administration announced today it is going to openly violate the law and keep children in prisons indefinitely.  And that story is waaaaay down the page on the Wapo and NYT websites.  And it should be waaaaay down the page, because at the top is the claim that the president has been silently but effectively removed from power by some unknown junta.

For the first time today, I'm genuinely disturbed and frightened.  

[Brisketexan 104548]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'll be honest here--I've laughed about Brisket's seeming hyperbole along with everyone else.  I've laughed at him to his face about it.

I'm not laughing today.

Think about this--the administration announced today it is going to openly violate the law and keep children in prisons indefinitely.  And that story is waaaaay down the page on the Wapo and NYT websites.  And it should be waaaaay down the page, because at the top is the claim that the president has been silently but effectively removed from power by some unknown junta.

For the first time today, I'm genuinely disturbed and frightened.  

HAPPY END OF THE REPUBLIC TO YOU!

[jimmyjazz 45544]

At the risk of sounding like every resident of <name the state> who expounds on how extraordinary they are after a terrible natural disaster:

I do believe Americans are an extraordinary lot.  I don't think this ends with the Republic crumbling.  The last line of defense may very well be civil war, but I think people will go there if need be.  (I do recognize the hyperbole in that last sentence.)

Edited September 6, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[SimonBolivar 10910]

I always thought junta was a cool word.

[Brisketexan 104548]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

I always thought junta was a cool word.

It usually comes with nifty uniforms.

 

....but we get this...

Edited September 6, 2018 by Brisketexan

[SimonBolivar 10910]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

 

I do believe Americans are an extraordinary lot.  I don't think this ends with the Republic crumbling.  The last line of defense may very well be civil war, but I think people will go there if need be.  (I do recognize the seeming hyperbole in that last sentence.)

I feel like we used to be extraordinary. 2018 America has the same righteous indignation of the past mixed in with a soft cowardliness of sloth.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Coats, Pence, Pompeo have all said they aren't the author.

[Chad Fuck 17551]

10 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I feel like we used to be extraordinary. 2018 America has the same righteous indignation of the past mixed in with a soft cowardliness of sloth.

Our political foundation is extraordinary.  But for some reason, we've come to believe that Americans somehow reside outside the realm of human failings and are extraordinary as people.  Some kind of liberty for all ubermenchen.  We are not.  We are subject to the same whims and follies as all other humans.  The Founding Fathers realized this and tried to protect us from it.  Many have allowed themselves to be lulled into the daydream of being somehow better than the rest of the humanity and its' pitfalls.  We're tripping mightily but I'm hopeful the fall will awaken us from our slumber.  It's going to be painful though.

[Brisketexan 104548]

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

Our political foundation is extraordinary.  But for some reason, we've come to believe that Americans somehow reside outside the realm of human failings and are extraordinary as people.  Some kind of liberty for all ubermenchen.  We are not.  We are subject to the same whims and follies as all other humans.  The Founding Fathers realized this and tried to protect us from it.  Many have allowed themselves to be lulled into the daydream of being somehow better than the rest of the humanity and its' pitfalls.  We're tripping mightily but I'm hopeful the fall will awaken us from our slumber.  It's going to be painful though.

The stupidity of the mob goes back to Rome (and surely, before).

We are not immune.

Rome fell.

We're falling.

Sic Semper fucking idiots.