What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

New York Times: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration (1 Viewer)

toshiba

Footballguy
New York Times: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

EDITORS’ PICKS

War Without End

How Dev Hynes Became Blood Orange, R.&.B. Miracle Worker

National Enquirer Had Decades of Trump Dirt. He Wanted to Buy It All.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.

 
I think this deserves it's own thread.  

If true do you feel anything positive or negative about the anonymous author? 

Does the fact their job is more important that giving authenticity to the article make you feel negativity of them?

If you are that concerned, like the article suggests, your job is the least of this country's concern.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow.  Just wow.

I just wish this person had the guts to put their name on it. We'd be writing songs about him/her.

 
Wow.  Just wow.

I just wish this person had the guts to put their name on it. We'd be writing songs about him/her.
I think this is an important point.  If you come out and stand by this as an insider, yes you will be fired, but you will be doing the nation a huge service.

 
"Look at Me!  I'm doing "the right thing" by publishing an anonymous op-ed in the New York Times!  Maybe now I can sleep at night." 

GTFO with that garbage.
I agree, this is shocking in it's content, but we need the who for it to matter.

 
And then you get replaced with an incompetent Trump loyalist and we are all worse off as a result.
But we have two processes for dealing with an incompetent jackass like Trump in the WH. One is impeachment. The other is the 25th Amendment. 

Nowhere in the Constitution is "subvert the President's will by going behind his back and only enacting those policies you personally agree with." 

 
Cowards, the lot of em.  They need to quit scurrying around like the rats they are and do what's right.  Our reputation has been tarnished enough.

 
Can't be Pence. The NYT explicitly stated it's someone whose job would be in jeopardy. Trump can't fire Pence.

As I stated in the Trump thread, I think it's Sessions. He knows he's toast in two months anyway.

 
Trump has this person put on trial for treason, death penalty on the table, Trump fires the fatal shot after conviction and sentence of death by firing squad. 

I'm opening the line at +350

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But we have two processes for dealing with an incompetent jackass like Trump in the WH. One is impeachment. The other is the 25th Amendment. 

Nowhere in the Constitution is "subvert the President's will by going behind his back and only enacting those policies you personally agree with." 
I'm in favor of both impeachment and the 25th amendment.  Given that neither of those is going to happen any time soon, I think subverting the worst of Trump is a good, patriotic alternative.

I mean, if Trump gave his generals an order to launch a preemptive strike on Canada because he doesn't like NAFTA, you would want them to refuse to carry out that order, right?  And no, that's not a far-fetched hypothetical.  This is the administration that build concentration camps for kids.  God only knows what stuff didn't make it into actual policy.

 
And then you get replaced with an incompetent Trump loyalist and we are all worse off as a result.
This Op-ed is blindingly stupid and narcissistic. The best way to assure that Trump will purge the White House of any sensible folks who are thwarting Trump's worst and fill it with nutjob loyalists like Communists purging their ranks, is to publish an annonymous screed like this.

What is the point? It certainly won't change anything on the inside for the better. There is zero upside to the country to go public like this, especially annonymously. Now Trump is going to be MORE paranoid and MORE likely to purge any sensible people left. The whole point of working quietly behind the scenes to work for the nation's good is to WORK QUIETLY BEHIND THE SCENES! Going public annonymously can only have downside for the country and possible glory for the writer who will obviously be revealed eventually anyway (and they know that). So incredibly selfish. Almost as selfish as Trump.

 
I've seen Pence's speechwriter getting mentioned as a potential source.  Use of "lodestar" is something he could have gotten from working for Pence.  The op-ed also uses a bunch of cliche-y type phrases that speechwriters like.

 
I was coming here to post something similar Grove. This is just going to push Trump to an even more erratic place and make him less likely to be talked out of his insane ideas.

 
So they are keeping him barely in control puttting the country at considerably at risk while they get their tax cuts and pack the courts.

This is a smash and grab job that maybe the world has never seen the like of.  
You seem amazed that a conservative Republican would support lower taxes and want to see conservative justices appointed to the bench.  Of course that's what they want.  If and when Trump is impeached, Pence will continue with the same low-tax and conservative-judge-appointing agenda that literally every Republican would enthusiastically support. 

 
I've seen Pence's speechwriter getting mentioned as a potential source.  Use of "lodestar" is something he could have gotten from working for Pence.  The op-ed also uses a bunch of cliche-y type phrases that speechwriters like.
I’m not sure the VP’s speechwriter qualifies as a Senior White House official.

 
This Op-ed is blindingly stupid and narcissistic. The best way to assure that Trump will purge the White House of any sensible folks who are thwarting Trump's worst and fill it with nutjob loyalists like Communists purging their ranks, is to publish an annonymous screed like this.

What is the point? It certainly won't change anything on the inside for the better. There is zero upside to the country to go public like this, especially annonymously. Now Trump is going to be MORE paranoid and MORE likely to purge any sensible people left. The whole point of working quietly behind the scenes to work for the nation's good is to WORK QUIETLY BEHIND THE SCENES! Going public annonymously can only have downside for the country and possible glory for the writer who will obviously be revealed eventually anyway (and they know that). So incredibly selfish. Almost as selfish as Trump.
:goodposting:

 
Can't be Pence. The NYT explicitly stated it's someone whose job would be in jeopardy. Trump can't fire Pence.

As I stated in the Trump thread, I think it's Sessions. He knows he's toast in two months anyway.
Someone with ties to the Senate, word use lodestar, getting smoked on twitter by the president all the time, I like it.

 
Deep Troat will lead the way to a wave of anonymous bean spillers. They're gonna need a bigger bandwagon!

 
I think the real purpose of this editorial is for the author to try to remain employable if the Trump administration disintegrates with several of the people in the inner circle, including the boss, eventually sentenced to prison terms. This person doesn't want to be considered a collaborator with the evil regime. It would be great if everyone associated with this administration is permanently driven out of anything to do with running the government at any level. They all deserve to do the  Game of Thrones "Walk of Atonement". 

Of course, nothing negative will ever happen to any of the Trump enablers. The criminals will all be pardoned, Trump will probably pardon himself and he'll have 5 votes on the Supreme Court that will say it's constitutional. The flunkies, like whoever wrote this OP ED, will always find a place at Fox News, Cato, Heritage, etc to continue their careers. There will be several books, promoted on all the cable news networks, about how these "brave souls" saved the country. 

 
I'm in favor of both impeachment and the 25th amendment.  Given that neither of those is going to happen any time soon, I think subverting the worst of Trump is a good, patriotic alternative.

I mean, if Trump gave his generals an order to launch a preemptive strike on Canada because he doesn't like NAFTA, you would want them to refuse to carry out that order, right?  And no, that's not a far-fetched hypothetical.  This is the administration that build concentration camps for kids.  God only knows what stuff didn't make it into actual policy.
If President Trump (or anyone) ordered a military strike on Canada the 25th Amendment should be invoked immediately. Just ignoring the order is a dereliction of duty. 

 
If President Trump (or anyone) ordered a military strike on Canada the 25th Amendment should be invoked immediately. Just ignoring the order is a dereliction of duty. 
But you disregard the order first, regardless of whether anybody else invokes the 25th amendment or starts impeachment proceedings.

 
Can't be Pence. The NYT explicitly stated it's someone whose job would be in jeopardy. Trump can't fire Pence.

As I stated in the Trump thread, I think it's Sessions. He knows he's toast in two months anyway.
Not Sessions. He doesn’t believe in free markets. 

That should be a clue. We’re dealing with a more traditionally minded Republican here, not a nationalist. 

 
I never notice this before but just saw it brought up on twitter. Here's the official response - 

WH Response

It starts, "Nearly 62 million people voted for Donald Trump in 2016, earning him 306 electoral college votes ..."

--

Obviously its weird that he always brings up the vote but ... he didn't actually get 306 EV votes. He got 304. So why do they always mis-quote it as 306?

 
You seem amazed that a conservative Republican would support lower taxes and want to see conservative justices appointed to the bench.  Of course that's what they want.  If and when Trump is impeached, Pence will continue with the same low-tax and conservative-judge-appointing agenda that literally every Republican would enthusiastically support. 
What we are seeing right now should be amazing. It is amazing. Breathtaking. These are not true Americans. 

 
I never notice this before but just saw it brought up on twitter. Here's the official response - 

WH Response

It starts, "Nearly 62 million people voted for Donald Trump in 2016, earning him 306 electoral college votes ..."

--

Obviously its weird that he always brings up the vote but ... he didn't actually get 306 EV votes. He got 304. So why do they always mis-quote it as 306?
This one goes to eleven. 

 
I never notice this before but just saw it brought up on twitter. Here's the official response - 

WH Response

It starts, "Nearly 62 million people voted for Donald Trump in 2016, earning him 306 electoral college votes ..."

--

Obviously its weird that he always brings up the vote but ... he didn't actually get 306 EV votes. He got 304. So why do they always mis-quote it as 306?
Is this the NH conspiracy theory that he actually won the state if not for the voters that were bussed in.

 
Is this the NH conspiracy theory that he actually won the state if not for the voters that were bussed in.
I don't think so. I did some research and according to this article, some of the Electoral College voters didn't vote for Trump or Clinton.

State                             Pledged to               Voted for

Hawaii                          Clinton                    Bernie Sanders

Texas                           Trump                    Ron Paul

Texas                           Trump                 John Kasich

Washington                 Clinton                 Colin L. Powell

Washington                Clinton                Colin L. Powell

Washington                Clinton                 Colin L. Powell

Washington               Clinton                   Faith Spotted Eagle

 
I never notice this before but just saw it brought up on twitter. Here's the official response - 

WH Response

It starts, "Nearly 62 million people voted for Donald Trump in 2016, earning him 306 electoral college votes ..."

--

Obviously its weird that he always brings up the vote but ... he didn't actually get 306 EV votes. He got 304. So why do they always mis-quote it as 306?
Weird that they forgot to mention that nearly 66 million people voted for his opponent. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top