The American Deep State Exists, And It's Disappointing

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

CaitSeith:
And now Trump is calling that guy a traitor and demanding his info to the NYT. I'm not saying Donald Trump is a despot; but his words make it really difficult to not describe him like one...

I will say it then. Trump is a despot.

It is only because he is trying to be a despot of the US that we aren't building giant statues of him in Times Square. (As opposed to a country that already shifted into a fully despotic government)

CaitSeith:
And now Trump is calling that guy a traitor and demanding his info to the NYT. I'm not saying Donald Trump is a despot; but his words make it really difficult to not describe him like one...

He's demanding they give him info on a conspiracy against the presidency, how is everyone ignoring that? This amounts to a fucking coup, everyone is so desperately looking for a way to turn this back on Trump that they're completely missing the actual story.

Kwak:
Nothing Yes Minister didn't already teach us.

I totally agree , one of the greatest shows that actually showed how politics actually work. True then and true now nothing every changes.

Ravinoff:

CaitSeith:
And now Trump is calling that guy a traitor and demanding his info to the NYT. I'm not saying Donald Trump is a despot; but his words make it really difficult to not describe him like one...

He's demanding they give him info on a conspiracy against the presidency, how is everyone ignoring that? This amounts to a fucking coup, everyone is so desperately looking for a way to turn this back on Trump that they're completely missing the actual story.

And what is the actual story? "Raving madman's every whim isn't catered to"? And honestly, yeah, people are going to turn this back onto him. It's his fucking fault. He doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything other than himself, with the country he's president of being included in that. He makes snap decisions based on what he saw on Fox or heard offhand from someone. He doesn't think about consequences or anything else for that matter. It's all about what feels right at the time for him and if it makes him look "tough".

If it's true that he ordered the assassination of Assad on a fucking whim, then yeah, I'm happy Mattis didn't listen. I'm glad that the cabinet doesn't cater to the every whim of a lunatic who doesn't think about anything that he's saying or doing. You're likening it to a coup when they just nod along and don't listen when he says "I want you guys to assassinate this dictator, I heard bad things and I want him dead now! I am very upset!". His actual agenda is coming along just fine and dandy. The writer of the piece literally says so, which is why it's so fucking laughable that they claim they're some inner resistance. After all, they're okay with his agenda as it's what they want. The only fucking thing they're undermining, is his insanity and ignorance.

Exley97:
1. This is not an example of the so-called "Deep State." This is a member of Trump's own administration, a senior official hand-picked by either Trump himself or his closest advisers. The deep state is generally thought of as a collective of un-elected or un-appointed government officials in predominantly but not limited to the military, defense and intelligence communities.

It's not the classical understanding of the "deep state" as seen in Turkey prior to Erdogan, but given how Trump and his supporters in the media constantly rail against a fictional deep state made out of Democrat sleeper agents and people on Soros' payroll, I felt it was worthwhile to repurpose the term to describe the deep state that actually exists - one created, staffed, and overseen by Republicans who recognise the incompetence of the president, and who are somewhat hypocritically trying to "protect" the country from his incompetence while insisting publicly that he has their full support.

The fact is that the Trump administration is openly dysfunctional. The core of this dysfunction is Trump, who is incapable of meeting the demands of the office. But the enabler of this dysfunction is the loosely-named "deep state" - which, rather than being a shadow cabal of conspiratorial puppetmasters, is really just all the people in the administration who aren't fucking idiots. These people could help remove Trump; they don't want to. They want to ride his coattails for as long as possible to get the tax cuts policy changes that they desire, then bail out before it implodes and claim that they were working against him the whole time.

But this whole situation is gangrenous. Congress - who Trump cannot fire - has abdicated its oversight role in favour of the "adults in the room" - who Trump can fire. The role of overseeing, controlling, and regulating the Presidency has shifted from people outside the President's control to people within the President's control. If this particular president wasn't such a colossal fucking idiot, he would realise that he can just fire every last member of the "deep state" - at which point, who's left to rein him in? A Congress that has willfully supplicated itself before him and spent years touting his accomplishments to the voters? The toadies left standing in the wreckage of an internal staff purge? The voters themselves, who are so conditioned to disregard uncomfortable facts that they seem to think that Obamacare has been repealed?

This pseudo-deep-state isn't the one that Trump's supporters dream up to explain their president's shortcomings. But I think it's just as harmful to democracy as a "real" deep state. Congress is not doing its job. They've outsourced to a group of people who are a lot more vulnerable than they look. The resulting status quo is much, much more unstable than if they just ripped off the fucking band-aid and impeached Trump already.

And I agree with you; these guys aren't patriots. They're in it for themselves, and they only released this op-ed because they can sense the coming earthquake when the House flips and the subpoenas start flying.

Ravinoff:

CaitSeith:
And now Trump is calling that guy a traitor and demanding his info to the NYT. I'm not saying Donald Trump is a despot; but his words make it really difficult to not describe him like one...

He's demanding they give him info on a conspiracy against the presidency, how is everyone ignoring that? This amounts to a fucking coup, everyone is so desperately looking for a way to turn this back on Trump that they're completely missing the actual story.

No-one is ignoring that. We're just pointing out two specific details:

1. All the members of this soft-coup "resistance" are Republicans who were nominated by Trump, approved by Republicans, and who have been pursuing Republican policy goals. To the extent that there is a conspiracy against the presidency, it is a Republican conspiracy against a Republican president who does not instinctively adhere to Republican orthodoxy. More than anything else, what this tells us is that the administration and the Republican party together form a pack of retards and opportunists - the President is incapable of fulfilling the demands of his position, his staff and party have no confidence in him, and the choices faced by Republicans today are "suck it up and lie through your teeth to get your tax cuts" or "speak out, get fired, and let the idiot manchild run amok."

2. What is described here still doesn't meet the definition of treason. Treason in the US is a specific offence with a specific constitutional definition. This is true when people accuse Trump of treason; it is true when Trump accuses others of treason. The circumstances here do not meet the standard for treason because none of the conspirators have given aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States or waged war on the United States. Depending on internal department policy, you could probably have the conspirators fired for insubordination, but that's not a crime unless you're in the military. If they destroyed or altered documents, they could potentially be prosecuted for espionage, or under the Presidential Records Act. But that's basically it.

Trump accusing the op-ed's author of treason just shows that he understands neither treason nor the nature of his office; treason in the US involves betraying the country, not the President personally. Trump does not see a distinction between himself and the state; in his view, if you betray him - or stymie his objectives, or merely badmouth him - then you are a traitor, even if the goal of your "betrayal" was to protect the interests of the United States.

Ravinoff:

He's demanding they give him info on a conspiracy against the presidency


It was bound to happen to Trump; for antagonizing with everyone who wasn't loyal to him.

Ravinoff:

CaitSeith:
And now Trump is calling that guy a traitor and demanding his info to the NYT. I'm not saying Donald Trump is a despot; but his words make it really difficult to not describe him like one...

He's demanding they give him info on a conspiracy against the presidency, how is everyone ignoring that? This amounts to a fucking coup, everyone is so desperately looking for a way to turn this back on Trump that they're completely missing the actual story.

When Trump doesn't like you, he replaces you.

Why cant we do the same to Trump?

https://i.imgur.com/0s2LIO6.gifv

https://i.imgur.com/qJCyyE0.gifv

Interesting twist; it has been suggested that the anonymous source is none other than the Vice President himself, Mike Pence. This is based, as far as I can tell, entirely on the use of the word "lodestar" in the document to describe people, a term really only used by Pence. So its a) conjecture and b) spurious at best, but given Pence usually just stands at the back being quiet it would be interesting if this were some idea of his to "make a move"

To those who are calling these people traitors or a conspiracy against the presidency, I ask you this.

Are these people supposed to be loyal to the President? Or the Country? Because in my mind, it's supposed to be the Country first, and the President if he or she is beneficial to the Country.

Trump has not shown himself beneficial to the Country. In fact, he's damaging. We often cite that those who went along with rule of despot, tyrants, and madman should have done something. And now, when we have a case of it on our own shores, we are disgusted that it happened. I find that fascinating.

Saelune:

Ravinoff:

CaitSeith:
And now Trump is calling that guy a traitor and demanding his info to the NYT. I'm not saying Donald Trump is a despot; but his words make it really difficult to not describe him like one...

He's demanding they give him info on a conspiracy against the presidency, how is everyone ignoring that? This amounts to a fucking coup, everyone is so desperately looking for a way to turn this back on Trump that they're completely missing the actual story.

When Trump doesn't like you, he replaces you.

Why cant we do the same to Trump?

https://i.imgur.com/0s2LIO6.gifv

https://i.imgur.com/qJCyyE0.gifv

Then replace him, there's two different ways to do so under the Constitution. Until then, he's still the president and this is still completely illegal.

And no, it's not treason by legal definition, as people keep pointing out. It is, however, conspiracy, insubordination, complete disregard for the office of the presidency and legal structure of the federal government.

Ravinoff:

Saelune:

Ravinoff:

He's demanding they give him info on a conspiracy against the presidency, how is everyone ignoring that? This amounts to a fucking coup, everyone is so desperately looking for a way to turn this back on Trump that they're completely missing the actual story.

When Trump doesn't like you, he replaces you.

Why cant we do the same to Trump?

https://i.imgur.com/0s2LIO6.gifv

https://i.imgur.com/qJCyyE0.gifv

Then replace him, there's two different ways to do so under the Constitution. Until then, he's still the president and this is still completely illegal.

And no, it's not treason by legal definition, as people keep pointing out. It is, however, conspiracy, insubordination, complete disregard for the office of the presidency and legal structure of the federal government.

1. Legally replacing Trump requires Republicans to act. They wont.

2. The American Colonies illegally opposed their government.

3. Revolution is legal in the US anyways.

Ravinoff:
Then replace him, there's two different ways to do so under the Constitution. Until then, he's still the president and this is still completely illegal.

The problem is that the two methods available - impeachment and removal via the 25th Amendment - require the action of Congress and the President's own cabinet, respectively. Both of these institutions are dominated by Republicans, who are refusing to act due to a pathological lack of balls.

Saying "well if he needs to be replaced why don't you replace him" is more than a tad nonsensical when the people who have the power to replace him are a) Republicans and b) steadfastly ignoring everybody's demands to replace him, despite anonymous admitting that they want to replace him.

Ravinoff:
And no, it's not treason by legal definition, as people keep pointing out. It is, however, conspiracy, insubordination, complete disregard for the office of the presidency and legal structure of the federal government.

Well...none of those are crimes, actually. Insubordination is not a crime outside of the armed forces, though it can be grounds for terminating someone's employment in both the private and public sectors. "Complete disregard for the office of the presidency" isn't a crime either. Conspiracy is a crime, but it is specifically the crime of entering into an agreement with another person to commit a crime. You don't charge someone with "conspiracy" alone; there needs to be an underlying criminal offence that the conspiracy was in service of. I mean, I might enter into an agreement with another person to go get ice cream after work, and therefore conspire to purchase and eat ice cream, but that isn't illegal.

The potential illegality here does not actually come from the publication of the op-ed. It contained no classified or confidential information, and it's not illegal to write an anonymous editorial critical of the administration within which you currently serve. What may potentially be illegal are the actions described within the article - specifically, the parts concerning efforts to control the flow of documents that the president receives. It's illegal to destroy or conceal White House documents, including letters and executive orders that you don't want the president to sign. Of course, Trump apparently violates that particular provision personally on a daily basis, so...

bastardofmelbourne:

Ravinoff:
Then replace him, there's two different ways to do so under the Constitution. Until then, he's still the president and this is still completely illegal.

The problem is that the two methods available - impeachment and removal via the 25th Amendment - require the action of Congress and the President's own cabinet, respectively. Both of these institutions are dominated by Republicans, who are refusing to act due to a pathological lack of balls.

I mean, they're getting everything they want, as long as they can stop the guy from detonating everything. This anon op-ed is about trying to cover their ass when shit gets untenable.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here