Trump Lashes Out After Reports of ‘Quiet Resistance’ by Staff

[ClaraD]

No, I don't consider Democrats Americans. They are people living in America that want to see this country "fundamentally transformed". Democrat politicians have no problem breaking laws and rules, see Booker for the latest example.

Those who vote democrat are either ignorant or have no problem voting for people who think the laws do not apply to them.

So while they are technically "American" in name, not so much in the American spirit.

If you don't consider Democrats, American..you arent proscribed to what makes this country great...the attitude falls along Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Being born here makes one a real American

 

[Slingshot Bob]

If you don't consider Democrats, American..you arent proscribed to what makes this country great...the attitude falls along Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Being born here makes one a real American

Like I said, they technically are, but they don't LIKE America as it is. They want a "progressive" America which is the vision of the far left.

 

[chuckiechan]

There won't be an Trump on the ticket in 2020 if that's what you mean. Trump will be lucky to finish his term.

I love how **** sure democrats are about everything. Living large without maybe’s.

 

[Anthony60]

Yip you can only go so far with an anonymous source.

Just ask Nixon...

I'm referring to credibility of the sources. These days, we have other outlets to counter the one sided news outlets back them. Not really the same anymore.

 

[Anthony60]

Maybe no one is undermining the PotUS then.

If you don't believe the folks who're telling you they're undermining the PotUS, maybe they're not doing any undermining.

So now, you can stop worrying about the undermining.

The problem still remains, why did the NY Times publish this Op-Ed? It really isn't anything special. It could have been written by anyone that hates Trump. No special information that only an "insider" would know. It's choc full of left wing, anti-Trump talking points from the left. Like I joked before (though it could be true), Chuck Schumer, et al could have/would have written it. And the Times, ever vigilant in protecting the identity. What a joke.

What would they have done had an insider in the Obama or, God forbid, the Hillary administration come forward with the same type of damaging information against them? You think they would have published an anonymous Op-Ed, protecting the author? LOL, fat chance. They would have exposed them to their leader and they would have been destroyed.

That's why the NY Times sucks and is only worthy of being a bird cage liner.

 

[Sabre]

I'm not the one defending Trump's definition of treason...you are.

In US law, there is no such thing as treason against a sitting president...and no, you don't get to redefine the constitution for this discussion or any other.


That said, treason as defined by the Constitution seems to fit Trump like a glove...after all, he's the one who adheres to hostile anti-American dictators and tries to give them aid and comfort and many of his so called policies are decidedly un-American.

Article III, section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.​

According to the Op-ed author there are more than enough witnesses. TO WHAT??
.

I'm sorry, I did not realize I misread the topic of this OP. Silly me, I really thought it was about people who were in the Trump administration and were, by their on admission, working to disrupt the president of the USA. I failed to realize this was a topic about Trump commuting treason.

When I actually read the article in the OP and it said that an "unnamed Trump administration official" said that his team was “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” I had not idea that actually meant Trump was guilty of treason against the United States. In fact, the only place in the OP I even find the word treason is when they echo Trump's one word tweet "TREASON?", as in questioning the very reliable unnamed sources actions.

Perhaps you and I read different OPs to this thread?

 

[lurchadams]

Not a wise move. Google this, just one of many problems with truthfulness at the NY Times:

NY Times Issues Correction After Trump Slams It for False Reporting, May 30, 2018.

If the reporting is so false, why is the white house in total meltdown in a frantic effort to root out the author? And before you call this "fake news" this is the Wall Street Journal, a conservative rag, reporting this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-searches-for-anonymous-inside-critic-1536189478

WASHINGTON—White House aides launched a search for the anonymous author of an opinion column who claimed Wednesday to be part of a secret group of officials inside the administration acting as a check on President Trump’s “worst inclinations.”

Apparently despite trump's denials, he things this person is pretty real!

 

[Conservative]

If crimes were committed, those responsible should be punished, right? Only if they're liberal?

I get from your comments that you don't really understand the Russia investigation. Not surprising. It's not about fake facebook accounts. It's about whether Russian money (and therefore influence) flowed into the Trump campaign. Now I wasn't one to believe that there was a lot there, until Trump practically sucked Putin's dick on TV in Helsinki.

I really don't give a damn where the money came from ,people still voted and had a choice, Hillary or Trump, they chose wisely and the results justify the vote. You weren't swayed by the rhetoric nor was I and that is the real issue. You cannot prove that votes were changed because of Russian rhetoric and propaganda, Trump didn't need Russian money to beat Hillary but keep beating that dead horse

 

[Conservative]

The job creation and economy are thanks to Obama and I have no problem with military spending for the most part as long as it not wasted on pork barrel spending.
It will take at least another year, closer to two for anything that trump has done will effect the economy. Well with the exception of tariffs, those are are ruining people's lives as we speak...

How exactly did Obama create the jobs that have happened since Trump took office? Did Obama revoke his own anti growth EO's and harmful regulations? Guess we should thank Obama and now Russia for giving us Trump, right?

 

[ClaraD]

Like I said, they technically are, but they don't LIKE America as it is. They want a "progressive" America which is the vision of the far left.

Our Constitution is what needs to be respected...the only one using it for toilet paper is Donald Trump

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Our Constitution is what needs to be respected...the only one using it for toilet paper is Donald Trump

That's real funny. Obama shat all over it.

 

[ClaraD]

That's real funny. Obama shat all over it.

Obama wasn't questioning why protests are legal....

 

[Parrish]

And now he's defending his sanity in Montana, discussing his impeachment and defending the guy who body slammed the reporter.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Obama wasn't questioning why protests are legal....

"protest" is not trying to shout down fed employees trying to conduct the peoples business.

 

[Moot]

I'm sorry, I did not realize I misread the topic of this OP. Silly me, I really thought it was about people who were in the Trump administration and were, by their on admission, working to disrupt the president of the USA. I failed to realize this was a topic about Trump commuting treason.

When I actually read the article in the OP and it said that an "unnamed Trump administration official" said that his team was “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” I had not idea that actually meant Trump was guilty of treason against the United States. In fact, the only place in the OP I even find the word treason is when they echo Trump's one word tweet "TREASON?", as in questioning the very reliable unnamed sources actions.

Perhaps you and I read different OPs to this thread?

Likewise, who knew that you were going to hijack the thread by attempting to redefine the constitution's definition of the word treason to fit your agenda...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...quiet-resistance-staff-13.html#post1069001211

So yeah, you must've read a different OP because this thread was about who the author might be and not treason.

Trump wouldn't call a fake op-ed treasonous...but he would if he thought the anonymous author was one of his own. But that still doesn't make what the author did treason.

 

[MSgt]

The USA is indeed a "sovereign nation", that is one use but, it stems from British terms, in the use that there was a "common head, chieftain, or sovereign, whose authority extended over the whole nation" which in this case would apply to the President in our usage.

I did notice that in your quote you struck out the majority of what I defined as treason, in fairness I feel you should have left that in if you are commenting on that part, or do as I did with your quote and denote that the quote has been truncated, such as I did by the inclusion of "-snip-". Other than that I basically agree with your post.

Not really. In the definition, "extended" refers to a former manner of use. The word is associated to monarch, who was an autocrat. The word also fits well with chieftain, because as the leader of a clan or a tribe, the position was normally for life. Therefore, it is understood that a sovereign is an autocrat position.

In democracies the people are the sovereign. The territory within the established borders is sovereign. But an elected official is never regarded as the sovereign. This is why our Forefathers began to use 'American sovereignty' instead of assigning 'sovereign' to the Office of the President.

 

[marke]

If the reporting is so false, why is the white house in total meltdown in a frantic effort to root out the author? And before you call this "fake news" this is the Wall Street Journal, a conservative rag, reporting this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-searches-for-anonymous-inside-critic-1536189478
Apparently despite trump's denials, he things this person is pretty real!

Trump asks a staffer who might have made the report or even if the report was actually made instead of being a totally fabricated lie? And the lying MSM explodes: "The Big orange ape goes bananas in desperate search to root out the leaker exposing his utter lack of qualifications to hold office?"

To hell with the MSM and their gutter garbage. They are liberals and they hate God, Christians, the Bible, conservatives and President Trump for not hating them.

 

[MSgt]

Like I said, they technically are, but they don't LIKE America as it is. They want a "progressive" America which is the vision of the far left.

Since progressivism has historically involved both liberals and conservatives, I don't think you understand what progressivism is.

And if it's progressives who don't LIKE America as it is, why is it that it is the conservatives who are wanting to make it great again? Since Trump's entire campaign was centered around denigration and irrational hate, thus creating a mindless slogan of Make America Great Again (despite none of you able to define that), it's clearly you people who showed your dislike for America.

You see, conservatives were told to hate America for eight years since 2008. You people went from creating the "birther" movement to de-legitimize election in 2008 to embracing a king "birther" in 2016, who waved his middle finger to the universe, practiced extremist politics to personally denigrate opponents as national enemies, and railed against our government. It seems very clear who didn't and still does not LIKE America as it is. And since America has always been a progressive country, I would argue that it tends to be conservative who is always struggling with it.

Conservatives cling to the past. This is why traditionalism has always been associated to conservatism. It's conservatives who don't like change over time and who are constantly whining about the state of the country because they prefer it to be defined by yesterday. Whereas, a progressive is always seeking to move forward and improve. So in terms of not liking how something is presently, one seeks to improve, where as the other wishes to turn back the clock.

 

[MSgt]

Trump asks a staffer who might have made the report or even if the report was actually made instead of being a totally fabricated lie? And the lying MSM explodes: "The Big orange ape goes bananas in desperate search to root out the leaker exposing his utter lack of qualifications to hold office?"

To hell with the MSM and their gutter garbage. They are liberals and they hate God, Christians, the Bible, conservatives and President Trump for not hating them.

It always fascinates me how the true offenders to Christianity are so often always Christians. It speaks volumes that you associate God, Christians, and the Bible with a ***** grabber, a serial adulterer, a serial liar, and a sex solicitor of pornographers.

You do your religion a great disservice by worshiping this false idol. Moses would be mad at you.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The problem still remains, why did the NY Times publish this Op-Ed? It really isn't anything special. It could have been written by anyone that hates Trump. No special information that only an "insider" would know. It's choc full of left wing, anti-Trump talking points from the left. Like I joked before (though it could be true), Chuck Schumer, et al could have/would have written it. And the Times, ever vigilant in protecting the identity. What a joke.

It seems what makes it "special" is the identity of the author.
Discounting the explanation of who the author is leaves you flummoxed.

What would they have done had an insider in the Obama or, God forbid, the Hillary administration come forward with the same type of damaging information against them? You think they would have published an anonymous Op-Ed, protecting the author? LOL, fat chance. They would have exposed them to their leader and they would have been destroyed.

Your thoughts on a hypothetical situation in an imaginary world are not nearly as compelling of an argument as you seem to think.
:shrug:

 

[prometeus]

To hell with the MSM and their gutter garbage. They are liberals and they hate God, Christians, the Bible, conservatives and President Trump for not hating them.

Ah, how sweet, very conservative delusion. Please do not delude yourself, they only oppose assholes who pretend to be all those things. As it turns out they are hypocrites and low intellect morons, who are too stupid to recognize reality. You are in good company.

 

[ClaraD]

"protest" is not trying to shout down fed employees trying to conduct the peoples business.

Where does the Constitution define restrictions on protest and free speech? I disagree with their method, but I understand their frustration.

 

[cabse5]

We know they took an oath to protect the country...not Trump.

SIAP.
'Anonymous' is a traitor. Someone who is a traitor isn't protecting the country.

 

[cabse5]

California, last I saw, was in America and people who live their are Americans.

And undocumented immigrants, for example, likely vote in Cali., too.

 

[MSgt]

Because it came out right after Woodward's book issue, I was partly expecting a Trump aide to come out and declare that the Administration leaked this letter to prove a point about the "fake news." Then use how the "fake news" reacted in order to try to discredit Woodward's account.