anyone still afraid of #45 should read this op-ed by David Brooks

[ginnyinWI]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opinion/what-a-failed-trump-administration-looks-like.html

....First, it means an administration that is passive, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. To get anything done, a president depends on the vast machinery of the U.S. government. But Trump doesn’t mesh with that machinery. He is personality-based while it is rule-based. Furthermore, he’s declared war on it. And when you declare war on the establishment, it declares war on you.

The Civil Service has a thousand ways to ignore or sit on any presidential order. The court system has given itself carte blanche to overturn any Trump initiative, even on the flimsiest legal grounds. The intelligence community has only just begun to undermine this president.

President Trump can push all the pretty buttons on the command deck of the Starship Enterprise, but don’t expect anything to actually happen, because they are not attached.

(snip)

The first conclusion is obvious. This administration is more like a medieval monarchy than a modern nation-state. It’s more “The Madness of King George” than “The Missiles of October.” The key currency is not power, it’s flattery...

[unblock]

1. "imagine the roman empire governed by monaco"

well, at least he's got one thing right -- it's hard to imagine how donnie actually goes away. impeachment and 25th amendment solutions require hearty support from cowardly republicans who rely on donnie's voters for re-election, so these exists are not at all realistic.

if donnie were even a tad more of a nomal human being, he might give up and resign, but it's hard to see how his fragile ego could accept that.


however, i disagree that an unpopular donnie administration would be harmless. first, he'll obviously be at least as harmful as any time republicans control all three branches of government. he'll sign all the ridiculous tax cuts for the rich and necessary support for the poor, etc.

second, it's not clear that the bureaucracy won't by coerced into doing his bidding. they've already started purges. loyalists and/or fear of getting fired can make the vast machinery bend to his will.

third, even if brooks is right that donnie himself will have little practical power while he's president, he in any event will have succeeded in shifting the dialog much further to the right, so that the next right-wing lunatic that comes in will seem reasonable by comparison, merely by using a sixth grade vocabulary and not talking about himself all the time -- even if that right-wing lunatic is far, far to the right even of shrub.

[femmedem]

2. Reassuring, but nonetheless there are reasons to be afraid.

1. There are only so many reporters, only so much space in the newspapers, and only so much time most people can devote to reading the national news. Every attention-grabbing executive order or press conference or tweet by Trump diverts people from whatever outrageous action the GOP Congress takes that day.

2. Trump's nominees will be in a position to cause tremendous harm. In Scott Pruitt's case, the harm may be irreversible.

3. Regardless of how diligently and earnestly other elected and appointed officials try to calm our allies, it seems inevitable that the degree to which our allies share information with us will be compromised.

[JCanete]

6. Incompetence is actually pretty terrifying. Yeah, Brooks is speaking the way I was months before

Trump got elected, but I since reconsidered. I'm not surprised to see resistance in government against him, and I predicted that his hands would be tied, but that doesn't change the fact that the typical crazy GOP stuff is going to get passed, because they want that stuff so bad. They'll probably do their best to distance themselves from him and pin all the destruction on him rather than those horrible policies when the time is right, and they'll get help from the media, and pretty much get off scott-free, as usual, though one can hope that his Presidency drags them down too.

But as to national security and our standing globally, that shit is scary as fuck. As to so many of the adults in the room resigning and opening up seats for Trump's ignorant sycophants and power mongers, that is also scary as fuck.

[Greybnk48]

3. I'm afraid of the damage Ryan and O'Connell

will do to Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and Obamacare. Not to mention the environment. Trump's a nothing, I agree, but the other two are stuffing their pockets as fast as they can.

[G_j]

8. Exactly

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2017, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)

while the clown distracts, there are absolute ghouls doing all they can to destroy this country.

[Cosmocat]

15. T H I S x 1,000,000

I have said all along, the assholes in Congress are the FAR bigger problem.

[Alice11111]

52. ...and they are using Dolt45 for as long as the getting is good. Fastly

[Dustlawyer]

23. Thats when we need to turn out like no other time in history!

Let them know they will be voted out everywhere.

[starshine00]

49. Trump is a convenient focal point, which they have already figured out

hey everyone, watch that clown being an idiot

meanwhile, they are obliterating our country as we know it behind the scenes. He's the court jester that snags our attention while the assassin poisons the wine.

[tazkcmo]

60. And Brooks supports it.

He's a conservative and a shill. I give not 2 fucks what he has to say. What ever it is, he's probably wrong.

[NCjack]

4. #45 has enough power to start wars and to destroy the

capability of agencies to restrain capitalism.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. I have been saying this for weeks

Several million civil service workers are "running the show" in the functional sense and have seen many Presidents come and go. The one to look out for is Congress.

[ginnyinWI]

10. right. that's what I have been saying, too.

Look past the clown show and see what the GOPers on the Hill are up to.

[meadowlander]

33. Agree on the domestic side

whatever the administration and congress get up to are probably reversible and can be checked by the career civil service, media and protests.

But... when hostile foreign countries smell blood in the water like this, they aren't going to be checked by internal US mechanisms. And when the commander in chief says "go to war", the military doesn't get to say "no, thanks" or "are you sure that's the best course of action?"

[BumRushDaShow]

55. Well technically, the CIC can't say "go to war"

that is entirely up to Congress. I.e., they must pass either a Declaration of War piece of legislation or of late (based on the War Powers Act) would need to do the "Authorization for Use of Force".

So other than the War Powers Act allowing a President to call up to (I believe) 200,000 (or 250,000) troops without congressional approval, the "go to war" command is in the hands of Congress.

Article I

<...>

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Those crafty founders tried to cover as many bases as they could knowing all about despots like Drumpf.

[meadowlander]

56. Yes, technically Congress holds the purse strings

but there are dozens of 20th C examples of the CIC ordering a "police action" that was technically a war without having to get Congressional approval.

[BumRushDaShow]

58. Holding the purse strings is actually a separate power

not just associated with military action.

But that is why I mentioned the "War Powers Act" (& would include 1973 update) which allowed that "limited" engagement. I.e., the President as "Commander in Chief" is not some dictatorial unchecked function to willy nilly "declare war".

I think we recall the Persian Gulf "War" came about as an Authorization of Use of Force allowing the 500,000 to get deployed troops (I still have the debate and vote on tape).

[Ms. Toad]

7. The one pretty button he can push that does work, unfortunately,

is the one Rick is carrying in the nuclear fooball.

[Dave Starsky]

16. I'm actually hoping that one's been disconnected for him.

I picture the guys in charge of the football replacing "the button" with one of those big red "That was easy" buttons from Staples. He would never notice, nor is he smart enough to figure it out.

I mean, it would be suicidal to give him actual power over launching nukes.

[Ilsa]

21. I have been hoping the "biscuit"

has bogus, not just outdated, launch codes.

[Dave Starsky]

25. I am hoping that "the biscuit" is an actual biscuit.

Fluffy, flaky, hot, fresh from the oven.

When Trump decides he wants to nuke a country, they hand it to him. He kind of looks at it, sniffs it, eats it. And forgets all about what he was doing.

[Ilsa]

40. LOL! I love it! NT

[ginnyinWI]

37. there is no actual physical button.

He would use the "biscuit" containing the launch codes and direct his military commander to do it. That person would risk court martial by not obeying, but that person would be the fail-safe in that situation. They would have to evaluate the validity of the threat, whether a false alarm or not, etc., and then decide.

[Ms. Toad]

50. I'd hate to be that person. n/t

[whathehell]

39. He needs the consent of the Secretary of State..

A presidents do.

[Ms. Toad]

51. I don't believe that is correct.

The Secretary of Defense has the authority to verify it, but not the legal authority to veto it.

This portrayal has become such an issue in the campaign that President Obama was asked about it at a news conference on Thursday, where he echoed Mrs. Clinton’s concerns. Her charge raises a question: Is there any check on a president’s power to launch nuclear arms that could destroy entire cities or nations?

The short answer is no, though history suggests that in practice, there may be ways to slow down or even derail the decision-making process. No one disputes, however, that the president has an awesome authority.

. . .

“There’s no veto once the president has ordered a strike,” said Franklin C. Miller, a nuclear specialist who held White House and Defense Department posts for 31 years before leaving government service in 2005. “The president and only the president has the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/science/donald-trump-nuclear-codes.html?_r=2

[Alice11111]

53. Mattis, please lift weights and practice your choke hold& Special opps who can grab the football&run

[dalton99a]

9. "Give the boy a lollipop and he won't notice if you steal his lunch."

Perfect description.

[struggle4progress]

11. Trump may function as the big shiny thing distracting us from what his minions do

So when Brooks says "don't worry! be happy!" I'm inclined to worry more

[JCanete]

13. yep...no kidding. nt

[Delphinus]

19. True

My fear is of the minions too.

[cwydro]

42. Yes.

What you said.

[Eyeball_Kid]

48. Brooks' head frequently resides up his ass. And Brooks seems to have

forgotten that Trumpy is being handled by Bannon. And Bannon is COMMITTED to doing as much institutional damage as possible.

[lindysalsagal]

12. I worry about who the U.S. will trust after losing faith in fRump.

Reality hates a power vaccuum. Someone will step in and will be annointed "the new savior."

We have no control over who that will be.

[ginnyinWI]

17. I would like to hope that it will lead to another Progressive Era.

The GOP will be very damaged after this. It isn't only #45 who will crash and burn. Others will be caught as the water goes down the drain. Not only because of their association with the President, but because their ideas and policies don't work and are not what the people really want.

[trof]

14. WOW! Can't believe this is David Brooks.

And I agree with him.

[JHB]

43. Oh, I can totally believe it's Brooks...by what he leaves out...

Nowhere in the piece does he mention the Republican-dominated Congress. He mentioned that the institutions that could bring Trump down no longer exist, but only in the most oblique manner implies that one of the missing institutions is Republicans with principles and who put the country before the party or their pet projects.

Congress could bring him down just by demanding the same level of accountability that they've insisted on from Democrats for the last quarter century. Instead, they'll back him, at least until they can ram through their favorite agenda points that could never pass in the light of day.

And, of course, Brooks avoids any acknowledgement that he has spent his entire career diligently building the road that Trump turned into a drag strip. Trump would never be president without conservative "thought leaders" spending the last few decades cultivating a voter base with all the prejudices that Trump took advantage of.

[uponit7771]

45. +1, even if Benedict Donald is 100% neutralized the totally untrustworthy congress who colluded with

... him and used the Russian hacked info during the election is still unchecked

[zentrum]

18. David Brooks

...is hardly a sharp analyst. Rump is actually an amazingly useful idiot who can provide distraction galore as the systemic changes are put in place.

At a certain point it won't matter if Rump is removed. For example, NPR described Gorsuch as the "Christian Right". Well, there goes the Supreme Court. If taxes are lowered on the rich---more and more income from the 99% will be transferred up.

Brooks sometimes too, is a useful idiot who inadvertently gives cover to the Repug Party which actually is always extreme.

[jmg257]

20. because his admin will fail? THAT is when we SHOULD be afraid.

While he's thrashing about trying to be in charge, trying to prove his relevance, as a 'failure".

AND the repub bills haven't yet begun to flow; some nasty BS has already been done (& attempted), and plenty more threats of more to come...sooner rather then later. His affect on the USSC?


I'm not holding my breath that there is nothing here to fear.

[Kimchijeon]

22. I appreciate the reassurance

but still am pretty sure he can manage to seriously fuck us all over....

Nonetheless thank you, it is some marginal comfort and for that I am thankful.

[Hekate]

24. KnR

[Hulk]

26. W was a dunce as well, albeit not to this depth...

...and look at the level of destruction the greedy evil bastards behind him pulled off while he was playing the part of potus.

We DO have reason to be afraid. It's the Bannons, Ryans, McConnells, Wall Street, military complex that we need to watch carefully. The complicite republican traitors are eager to rubber stamp and destroy every pillar of government now that they have green lights in nearly all avenues.

Be aware! Be very aware!

[Thekaspervote]

27. I agree with the op ed

DAvid Brooks is no stooge. Some here may not like him, and I've had my times.
the wheels of government turn very slowly and the various agencies are putting the brakes on. Yes, he's done some damage and we will all be glad to see him go.

[groundloop]

28. HOWEVER - 45 Will still gladly rubber stamp any right-wing bill that comes across his desk

THIS, I believe, is the greatest danger. Ryan and Turtle have some mighty ambitious plans for pushing their agenda to screw lower and middle class Americans, 45 won't hesitate to approve all of it. And don't forget the Supreme Court, there will be at least one of his nominees on the bench for many many years to come.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

29. Read that earlier today

Well written.

[Leith]

30. Pretty Words

But 45's disgrace and downfall will not come soon enough. Until it finally happens, he and his cohorts will do irreparable damage to all of us.

[Kaleva]

31. President Ford talked about how he tried to have a staffer fired.

They guy kept showing back up so Ford finally gave up on trying to get rid of him.

[Hekate]

32. Paragraph 2 reminds me of Tom Hanks as Capt Phillips: "You know what to do" to his crew below decks

...after the pirates took over the ship.

The Civil Service, the Courts, the Intelligence Community -- Bannon and Trump have no friends there. They form part of the Resistance.

[yallerdawg]

34. The jerk in the White House is the sideshow.

It's the party and the assholes who put him there we gotta watch!

[neverforget]

35. Just waiting for aReichstag fire or 9/11 event to make that all that Brooks

said moot. The call will be "Rally around the Flag and President" even if it's for a fascist dictatorship.

[Missn-Hitch]

36. Excellent read.

[ginnyinWI]

38. What this article does for me, is to refocus

me on what is important and what is not. What the Congress and the courts might do is important. The gang in the White House are not. They are busy spinning their wheels and thinking they are getting somewhere.

It reduces my level of anxiety, too. It's not the Congress that we'd like, but at least we have some semblance of government. We survived a GOP majority before and will again.

[Javaman]

41. Passive-Aggressive Behavior and Narcissism

http://www.lvcounseling.com/2015/11/07/passive-aggressive-behavior-and-narcissism/

Passive-aggressive behavior is the expression of negative or hostile feelings in an indirect manner. In its extreme it is a form of emotional abuse. Many narcissists use this type of behavior as their primary communication tool because they are deeply insecure, angry, and terrified of direct conflict. Dealing with passive-aggressive people is crazy-making. No one’s needs are adequately being met and because communication is covert, you often can’t put your finger on why it makes you feel so frustrated and upset. Passive-Aggressive behavior presents in these key ways:

Silent treatment – this is designed to punish the victim for setting boundaries and expectations and also used as an avoidance tool to prevent direct communication about feelings and conflict
Sarcasm – criticisms and put-downs are veiled as sarcasm with the hope that the victim won’t catch on to what’s happening. This also elevates the narcissist’s sense of self-importance.
Failure to meet customary expectations – passive-aggressive people are notorious for habitually running late, failing to follow through on a simple request that they already agreed to, or not following basic etiquette. They will have many excuses for why they should be forgiven or an exception should be made for them.
Deliberate procrastination – an example of this is failing to make a travel reservation until it’s too late as a way to sabotage the event
Withholding intimacy or praise – again, this is designed to punish the victim for having their own needs and also sends a message that they are unworthy
Complaints about injustice and lack of fair treatment – passive-aggressive people tend to blame the rest of the world for their problems and have an extremely difficult time with accountability

[geretogo]

44. What is more scary than Trump is the 39% of the population that live among us that put this

sociopath and Neo Nazi in the White house . They are the same type that held up their right arm
to Duer Fuer Adolf in the 30's .

[bucolic_frolic]

46. Hope. They're. Right.

[Ligyron]

47. I'm not real positive about bureaucratic resistance.

ICE sure jumped on that BS EO.

[NutmegYankee]

57. The union representing customs and border agents backed cheeto benito.

The unions for other parts of government, including the DOD, backed Clinton.

[BeckyDem]

54. Trump is only getting started, Mr Brooks and you have no clue how it will turn out.

You go ahead and breathe a sigh of relief with your obnoxious characterizations of the courts. I won't be banking on your opinion for anything.

[ginnyinWI]

59. And now for another conservative--Andrew Sullivan

Link to tweet

[drmeow]

61. Congress is using Trump

as a distraction while they destroy anything and everything progressive. How much power he does or doesn't have isn't all that relevant since he'll sign anything Bannon tells him to sign.