President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

White House aides turn on each other in hunt for op-ed author

 

So you want him to commit to a political stance, and then want to disqualify him because he won't commit to what you consider the correct political stance?

 

Ha, ha, ha. They're going after each other. Now this shit is getting fun.

 

Why would a recusal be a political stance?

 

Your know damn well who your lot is. Burnt steak eating ketchup loving mother fuckers. That’s your damn lot.

 

He could say that abortion is murder, roe v wade is wrongly decided. State’s have the right to regulate all forms birth control and even prohibit birth control. He could say that the 2nd Amendment is absolute, but the 1st has significant qualifications and exceptions. He could say that affirmative action is worse than intentional racial discrimination. And he would still be confirmed. He could say Mormons are going to hell and Brigham Young was a pedophile and Orin Hatch would vote for him.

 

That's another thing we could do, SpdTchr - make Orrin fuckin Hatch's 'church' start paying its taxes.

 

Because it's essentially committing to vote a certain way (albeit by not voting) and giving the appearance of being anti-Trump. It also pins him down to recuse himself if and when the time comes to hear ANY case about presidential malfeasance, whether it's Trump or someone 20 years down the line, without even knowing or considering the facts of the case.
It's always a bullshit question/demand in these hearings, because it demands an answer that's impossible for anyone involved in the law to give.
Plus, you know there is one answer and one answer only that will satisfy Democrats. It's not a question they're asking to probe his mindset, it's a question they're asking to get him on the record saying it for future use.

 

And every Democrat would still vote against him and call him a monster.

 

I'm still not sure how I feel about the NYT op-ed.
Specifically - is working to subvert the president because you think him incompetent/incapable of doing the job, better than:
1. resignation
2. invoking the 25th (it's possible there wouldn't be enough support - VP + majority of cabinet. but that's not the reason the author gave for avoiding it).


The argument for his course of action is that the present probably is dangerously incompetent. Another argument for is this is just an extreme example of what's happened to every president (others seeking to influence him by controlling the flow of info).

The argument against is - he was elected, you weren't. And there are constitutional remedies both you or the congress could seek to use to deal with this situation properly, and you're advocating for neither.

I also question how much checking of the president's incompetence the author is actually accomplishing. I don't know that there's a lot of evidence that the "adults in the room" are super effective...

(And that doesn't even get to the wisdom of publishing. Which doesn't seem like the type of thing someone who's super competent at subverting a president would choose to do. But I think the question of "was it smart for the anonymous author to go public" is a less interesting question than "taken at face value, what is the morality of his actions in a democratic society?")

 

Charles Pierce is convinced the writer is Kellyanne Conway.
He is right that the prose has a certain feminine lilt, and has the polish of a something that would come out of a comms shop.
At this point, I am less interested in authorship than the old journo in me is interested in how much light-touch editing the thing received (if any at all).

 

So why not be honest? Just say in his legal opinion the State’s right to intervene ina pregnancy outweighs the mothers right to terminate it. That abortion, if the state chooses, is a prosecutable crime of murder against the doctor and woman.
Why not be honest?