Members DramatistDreamer Posted September 5, 2018 Members Share Posted September 5, 2018 It takes a special kind of display to surpass Marco Rubio in terms of sheer desperation but Jones' wild show of desperation just about covers it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Juliajms Posted September 5, 2018 Members Share Posted September 5, 2018 Please register in order to view this content Every time I think things can't possibly get any crazier. My God. How can anyone alive now respect the government again? I know I won't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JaneAusten Posted September 5, 2018 Members Share Posted September 5, 2018 The @nytimes is a joke. No one voted for these "adults" and their agenda. They are not safeguarding America they are using Trump for cover to pass their draconian agenda. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 5, 2018 Members Share Posted September 5, 2018 Self-serving editorial? Yes. Shocking and unprecedented regardless? Oh yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DramatistDreamer Posted September 5, 2018 Members Share Posted September 5, 2018 So many of this country's institutions are run by truly garbage people. Those "resisters" are every bit as complicit as the glassy-eyed supporters who labor in delusions of the "good" that this White House is supposedly doing. They're actually worse because they have a sense of how much damage this twit-in-chief is capable of. This Op-Ed is clearly an attempt at trying to absolve themselves, perhaps so they can look at themselves in the mirror? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 5, 2018 Members Share Posted September 5, 2018 (edited) "At war with the establishment"? Oh, please. "The establishment" has proven they will kiss Trump's ring like everyone else. If TrumpCo. is actually scared of "the establishment," then they must not be paying attention. Sure, he might be fuming about Woodward's book at the moment, but because he has one of the shortest attention spans on record, he'll be over his butt-hurt by the time I finish typ -- and oh, look, he's over it already. Like I've said before, if you really want to destroy this man's ego, implying that he's incompetent and dangerous won't do it. It might sting him a lil' bit, but that's all. No, if you REALLY want to ring his chimes, so to speak, tell him he ain't rich. THAT will be the kind of hurt that lasts with him. Either way, I'm not reading it. I don't care what anyone within the administration has to say at this point. Anonymous, or not. If they aren't working to get that man removed from office (and sent away to a mental health facility), then they're just part of the trash that's way past needing to be taken out. Please register in order to view this content Look, I'm no fan of Alex Jones', but if he wanted to pick a fight with a Congressman, he should have chosen a worthier target than Marco [!@#$%^&*] Rubio. Edited September 5, 2018 by Khan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 5, 2018 Members Share Posted September 5, 2018 (edited) Oh, it's worth a read. They invoke the 25th Amendment and say Trump's administration will end "one way or another." It's self-serving rationalization, but it's still honestly shocking and history in the making. Edited September 5, 2018 by Vee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Juliajms Posted September 5, 2018 Members Share Posted September 5, 2018 This! They get how absolutely awful and crazy this is and they are part of it. Yes! An attempt to act like they aren't culpable for helping keep this man in office. Plus, if you really are an underground resister, you keep your mouth shut. This person will eventually be outed and act like a hero and make money from the situation. It's disgusting on every level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wendy Posted September 6, 2018 Members Share Posted September 6, 2018 In both soap/political news (well, he was from a political dynasty), Christopher Lawford (Ex-Charlie Brent, AMC) has died at 63 from a heart attack. Maybe he was too old for the role, but I liked him in it. May he RIP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WTGH Posted September 6, 2018 Members Share Posted September 6, 2018 CNNi actually wrote a Who Dun It? article Please register in order to view this content Article Lodestar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JaneAusten Posted September 6, 2018 Members Share Posted September 6, 2018 My guess is polling is showing Trump losing support and the GOP is getting ready to dump him. Other than that I don't care about this Op-ed. Kamala Harris continues to be a badass. Minorities led by black women are going to save us. She's a prosecutor and knows darn well the answer to what she is asking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 6, 2018 Members Share Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) So, I followed Vee's advice/nudging and read the darned thing. First of all, I'm not convinced the NYT op-ed was written by one person. The paper’s editorial staff says it was. I dunno, maybe it was. Or maybe, one was selected from the group to “fall on the grenade,” as it were, and present it to them as its' sole author. Regardless, reading it gave me "Virgin Suicides" vibes, so if Trump is determined to uncover the author's identity, all I can say is, best of luck. Do I disagree with the arguments that the op-ed presents? Of course not. But I also found the op-ed to be self-serving — an act of covering one’s ass — rather than the Norma Rae-esque act of defiance this individual, or these individuals, probably wanted us to view it as. You're absolutely right, DD: in a way, these “resistors” ARE worse than your average Trump supporters, because they KNOW the man is dangerously unfit for office, yet they refuse to take the steps necessary to have him removed. ("We don't want a constitutional crisis." Well, WTH do you think this administration has been from the start?) Admitting they know he is incompetent does not, in any way, absolve them of anything; and the good they THINK they've been able to do in spite of his authoritarian impulses...? Well, as the saying goes, let's just agree to disagree, and then move on. So, here's my bigger question: is the writer -- whether male or female, one person or actually several -- naive enough to believe his/her/their identity will never be exposed? Or was the decision to remain anonymous, in fact, part of an agenda, along with writing the letter itself, to sow the seeds of even more chaos within an already frustrated regime and ultimately, send the president, or at least those working closest to him, packing? If it's the latter, then what does THAT say about the overall moral character of the Trump administration? That a man who was once host of a "reality" series that encouraged its participants to "win at all costs," week after week, has now brought the same sense of cutthroat gamesmanship to a far more influential group who, in many cases, are the only ones separating the rest of us from total annihilation; and that, while the nefariousness he endorsed on "The Apprentice" and its spinoffs is very well leading to his own undoing as this nation's chief executive, it is also creating a dangerous precedent for administrations to come? To put it another way: "Is this just a game to you, people?" Sigh. I dunno. The more I sit on this, the more it seems to disagree with the little man in my stomach, to quote Edward G. Robinson's character in "Double Indemnity." Of course, I could be way off-base, this whole matter blows over by tomorrow, and we're onto the next dog whistle. On the other hand, Trump is already demanding the NYT turn over the letter-writer to the government "at once," setting the stage for a battle between the president and the fourth estate over the right to protect the identity of anonymous sources in the pursuit of news. So, this could get really ugly, really fast. Furthermore, I'm not liking the timing of the editorial’s publication. Nothing in the article suggests it couldn't have been published last month, six months ago, or last year. Yet, here it is, as hot and ready as a Little Caesars pizza, as Trump's designated "enemy of the people," the American press, remains under siege, and with full publication of Bob Woodward's book mere days away. To the person (or persons) responsible for writing that piece, my advice would be thus: whether or not you intend to remain invisible, know that you will be found out. Nothing and no one stays hidden forever; and in the meantime, your fearless leader will leave no proverbial stone unturned until he finds you (or finds someone to rat you out). Heads, as they say, will roll. If you don't have a contingency plan, get one. And to anyone in the entertainment and/or publishing industries who will, no doubt, entice the author(s) with lucrative deals of one kind or another, my advice would be to think twice. Trump is a loathsome human being, but so is the person (or persons) who would expose even an imbecilic tyrant to the light of public scrutiny, especially when they won't even leave their name(s) at the sound of the beep. Don't let this individual profit from their cowardice. This is me, giving my fiercest "WAKANDA FOREVER" salute. Edited September 6, 2018 by Khan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted September 6, 2018 Members Share Posted September 6, 2018 My main reaction to this op-ed is I don't understand what is new about any of what is being said. The people who are already scared about Trump will still be scared. The people who won't care still won't care. The people who love him will still love him. It just feels like the NYT muckraking for attention and to show everyone how important they are - which is the NYT's main goal in life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 6, 2018 Members Share Posted September 6, 2018 The thing is, things are changing. He's at 36% today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DramatistDreamer Posted September 6, 2018 Members Share Posted September 6, 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.