Anonymous White House Writer Isn't A Patriot. They're Betraying The Constitution

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

"President Trump is correct about one thing: The senior administration official who wrote that op-ed is gutless."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-new-york-times-anonymous-oped_us_5b90994ee4b0511db3dee5a7

 

Whole hearty agree with this writers opinion and Trump's thoughts on the subject. 

Freedom of speech is only valid if you are willing to sign your name to what you say. 

 

( Even though we already know there's a quite a bit of dysfunction with the white house right now)

[Dashinka 24,754]

34 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

"President Trump is correct about one thing: The senior administration official who wrote that op-ed is gutless."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-new-york-times-anonymous-oped_us_5b90994ee4b0511db3dee5a7

 

Whole hearty agree with this writers opinion and Trump's thoughts on the subject. 

Freedom of speech is only valid if you are willing to sign your name to what you say. 

 

( Even though we already know there's a quite a bit of dysfunction with the white house right now)

There has been a lot of dysfunction in the WH for a long time, but Trump still appears to be accomplishing things for the better.  I tend to agree with several pundits (mostly MDL types) that this will not be a senior WH official, but rather a low level functionary given the NYTimes track record with anonymous sources.

 

Btw, if an anonymous source showed up at the NYTimes with a similar piece of a Democrat president, would they print it?

[Dashinka 24,754]

Hmm, WaPo publishes a competing editorial.  They are right, this is just re-packaged old news coming out of the NYTimes.  Are they too busy in NYC converting to socialism?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/09/05/the-new-york-times-packages-old-news-in-an-anonymous-op-ed/?utm_term=.6f9fb6074a49

[yuna628 9,705]

Hubby and I discussed this last night..

 

There's several good possibilities of who it could be, and that individual shouldn't be patting themselves on the back for speaking out. If they had any principles they should have resigned long ago, or perhaps never even joined in the first place. So should many of those currently there. However, if they did we'd have a very empty building. These individuals feel that they are trying to put the needs of the people ahead of themselves. But what we need, and what we have always needed is men and women of principles that if they witness something so gravely and morally wrong - to stand up, speak truth, and do not associate with that which is wrong.

 

This story is nothing new. I had wind of things like this via the rumor mill very early on. There is a great dysfunction and btw it's not just people that are 'resisting', there's people trying to hand-hold him, there's people trying to sway him for their own goals (often some of the worst decisions that have come out of this administration is because of that), congress is tolerating only so far (there's plenty that are waiting for the 'right moment'). They are all trying to be mini-presidents because they all find him to be easily manipulated, ineffectual, and largely ignorant. This country reaps what it sows, and a 'caretaker' presidency is not a democratic republic.

 

However, as I said to him last night, I'd urge caution even believing this op-ed to begin with. Maybe that hasn't occurred to anyone, but it is not beyond this administration or the person currently president to leak when it suits purposes. There's odd phrases and an odd amount of praise. Both theories are just as bad. WaPo is correct in that this op-ed is rather old news, and is critical that perhaps the NYT pretends to be 'asleep at the wheel' in exchange for access. Don't doubt that the WH didn't get wind of this article ages ago, and then pretends to feign incredulity about it when made public. There's a lot more craziness to come... none of this is a surprise to me.

[TBoneTX 46,041]

This seems to be ongoing evidence that the media and the Deep Staters lost their minds long ago and will do anything at all to try to nullify the election results.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

11 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

This seems to be ongoing evidence that the media and the Deep Staters lost their minds long ago and will do anything at all to try to nullify the election results.

Or our countries employees/workhorses know that our pick for president was less than optimal so they are taking reasonable steps to keep the country from going into chaos. 

 

 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

10 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Or our countries employees/workhorses know that our pick for president was less than optimal so they are taking reasonable steps to keep the country from going into chaos. 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

This seems to be ongoing evidence that the media and the Deep Staters lost their minds long ago and will do anything at all to try to nullify the election results.

 

in both cases if either true, the actions, if done to misdirect the process of a legally elected government are questionable  and border on illegal

 

Definition of sedition

: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Edited September 6, 2018 by Randyandyuni

[yuna628 9,705]

Just now, Keith & Arileidi said:

Or our countries employees/workhorses know that our pick for president was less than optimal so they are taking reasonable steps to keep the country from going into chaos. 

 

 

What is a reasonable step though? It is not up to other persons to decide what is or isn't less optimal. It is not up to them to hand hold an idiot. We elected the idiot, and we reap what we sow. We will never learn otherwise. What is being done, is another aspect of a democracy eroding. This is a republic, not a regency. Persons behind the scenes co-presidenting, handholding etc is just as wrongly dysfunctional as the person supposed to be the president themselves.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

There has been a lot of dysfunction in the WH for a long time, but Trump still appears to be accomplishing things for the better.  I tend to agree with several pundits (mostly MDL types) that this will not be a senior WH official, but rather a low level functionary given the NYTimes track record with anonymous sources.

 

Btw, if an anonymous source showed up at the NYTimes with a similar piece of a Democrat president, would they print it?

"For the better" is pretty realative.

By the looks of Trump's approval rating "for the better" does not resolute with most of America. 

 

Anonymous... no... I also think they wouldn't have printed it about Bush. But there is a serious problem to be looked... And you want to put blame on the press for reporting said problems? 

 

I just wish it wasnt anonymous... Whistle blowers have rights and protections. It seems like this source just wants to keep Trump in a state of paranoia.

 

[Dashinka 24,754]

25 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

"For the better" is pretty realative.

By the looks of Trump's approval rating "for the better" does not resolute with most of America. 

 

Anonymous... no... I also think they wouldn't have printed it about Bush. But there is a serious problem to be looked... And you want to put blame on the press for reporting said problems? 

 

I just wish it wasnt anonymous... Whistle blowers have rights and protections. It seems like this source just wants to keep Trump in a state of paranoia.

 

So "for the better" is relative and then you go to presidential approval poll numbers which are also relative?

 

I think the WaPo editorial all but says anyone could have written this as there are no revelations at all.  Heck, could have been written by Brennan.

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Or our countries employees/workhorses know that our pick for president was less than optimal so they are taking reasonable steps to keep the country from going into chaos. 

 

 

What this group of people think is irrelevant compared to the much larger group that voted for Trump. What they think is only relevant at the ballot box. Just like the rest of us.

[Shiran 1,134]

6 hours ago, jg121783 said:

What this group of people think is irrelevant compared to the much larger group that voted for Trump. What they think is only relevant at the ballot box. Just like the rest of us.

Interesting view, but the issue is American Presidential election hinges on the fact "we the people" do not vote for president. Forefathers I guess assumed that an average person is not smart enough to be trusted with this process, so there is about 500 or so smarties who get to decide on who the president is. Still, the bickering is frustrating. Just because a person doesn't vote for someone as USC doesn't mean who ever ends winning is suddenly not "their" president. Bottom line is always the same, economy is the only thing that matters. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

14 minutes ago, Shiran said:

Interesting view, but the issue is American Presidential election hinges on the fact "we the people" do not vote for president. Forefathers I guess assumed that an average person is not smart enough to be trusted with this process, so there is about 500 or so smarties who get to decide on who the president is. Still, the bickering is frustrating. Just because a person doesn't vote for someone as USC doesn't mean who ever ends winning is suddenly not "their" president. Bottom line is always the same, economy is the only thing that matters. 

That is because if there was no Electoral College then the people running for President would never ever leave the bastions of populated areas to travel to anywhere outside of the them. That's pretty much like in CA how the Coastal Elites from the LA and Bay Area run the state. All the while leaving out and not caring about IE, Central Valley, Imperial Valley, or the far north of CA. 

[Dashinka 24,754]

7 hours ago, Shiran said:

Interesting view, but the issue is American Presidential election hinges on the fact "we the people" do not vote for president. Forefathers I guess assumed that an average person is not smart enough to be trusted with this process, so there is about 500 or so smarties who get to decide on who the president is. Still, the bickering is frustrating. Just because a person doesn't vote for someone as USC doesn't mean who ever ends winning is suddenly not "their" president. Bottom line is always the same, economy is the only thing that matters. 

There are many countries (democracies/republics) where the people do not vote directly for their executive leader.  Canada and the UK come immediately to mind.  We have to remember how the Constitution was set up which has worked great for many years.

[yuna628 9,705]

14 hours ago, Shiran said:

Interesting view, but the issue is American Presidential election hinges on the fact "we the people" do not vote for president. Forefathers I guess assumed that an average person is not smart enough to be trusted with this process, so there is about 500 or so smarties who get to decide on who the president is. Still, the bickering is frustrating. Just because a person doesn't vote for someone as USC doesn't mean who ever ends winning is suddenly not "their" president. Bottom line is always the same, economy is the only thing that matters. 

Honestly? The founders did not trust the people to be fully involved in the process if you study the way they set things up.

14 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

That is because if there was no Electoral College then the people running for President would never ever leave the bastions of populated areas to travel to anywhere outside of the them. That's pretty much like in CA how the Coastal Elites from the LA and Bay Area run the state. All the while leaving out and not caring about IE, Central Valley, Imperial Valley, or the far north of CA. 

This is true, however with the electoral college in place, people running for President tend to only stop in select states that they know will count and don't really care about the rest, often taking it for granted.