ADVERTISEMENT

TRUMP JUST SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER LETTING HIM PURGE THOUSANDS OF FEDERAL WORKERS FOR DISLOYALTY

ElprofesorJuan

Five-Star Recruit
Sep 4, 2019
961
452
63
The range of workers who could be stripped of protections and placed in this new category is vast, experts say, and could include most of the non-partisan experts—scientists, doctors, lawyers, economists—whose work to advise and inform policymakers is supposed to be done in a way that is fact-driven and devoid of politics. Trump has repeatedly clashed with such career workers on a variety of settings, ranging from his desire to present the COVID-19 pandemic as largely over, to his attempts to enable his allies to escape punishment for federal crimes, to his quixotic insistence that National Weather Service scientists back up his erroneous claim that the state of Alabama was threatened by a hurricane which was not heading in its direction. My only question is why now.
 
Last edited:
Which part? The antisemitism or the part where Hitler wanted to take over Russia?
This.........An Excerpt from Mein Kampf..
For these people change their convictions just as the soldier changes
his shirt in war--when the old one is bug-eaten. In the new programme
everyone gets everything he wants. The farmer is assured that the
interests of agriculture will be safeguarded. The industrialist is
assured of protection for his products. The consumer is assured that his
interests will be protected in the market prices. Teachers are given
higher salaries and civil servants will have better pensions. Widows and
orphans will receive generous assistance from the State. Trade will be
promoted. The tariff will be lowered and even the taxes, though they
cannot be entirely abolished, will be almost abolished. It sometimes
happens that one section of the public is forgotten or that one of the
demands mooted among the public has not reached the ears of the party.
This is also hurriedly patched on to the whole, should there be any
space available for it: until finally it is felt that there are good
grounds for hoping that the whole normal host of philistines, including
their wives, will have their anxieties laid to rest and will beam with
satisfaction once again. And so, internally armed with faith in the
goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the
struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the REICH' can now
begin.
For this reason it is necessary that a movement should, from the sheer
instinct of self-preservation, close its lists to new membership the
moment it becomes successful. And any further increase in its
organization should be allowed to take place only with the most careful
foresight and after a painstaking sifting of those who apply for
membership. Only thus will it be possible to keep the kernel of the
movement intact and fresh and sound. Care must be taken that the conduct
of the movement is maintained exclusively in the hands of this original
nucleus. This means that the nucleus must direct the propaganda which
aims at securing general recognition for the movement. And the movement
itself, when it has secured power in its hands, must carry out all those
acts and measures which are necessary in order that its ideas should be
finally established in practice.


Also, Hitler was a fan of the Christian movement and used it to gain power.
 
This.........An Excerpt from Mein Kampf..
For these people change their convictions just as the soldier changes
his shirt in war--when the old one is bug-eaten. In the new programme
everyone gets everything he wants. The farmer is assured that the
interests of agriculture will be safeguarded. The industrialist is
assured of protection for his products. The consumer is assured that his
interests will be protected in the market prices. Teachers are given
higher salaries and civil servants will have better pensions. Widows and
orphans will receive generous assistance from the State. Trade will be
promoted. The tariff will be lowered and even the taxes, though they
cannot be entirely abolished, will be almost abolished. It sometimes
happens that one section of the public is forgotten or that one of the
demands mooted among the public has not reached the ears of the party.
This is also hurriedly patched on to the whole, should there be any
space available for it: until finally it is felt that there are good
grounds for hoping that the whole normal host of philistines, including
their wives, will have their anxieties laid to rest and will beam with
satisfaction once again. And so, internally armed with faith in the
goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the
struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the REICH' can now
begin.
For this reason it is necessary that a movement should, from the sheer
instinct of self-preservation, close its lists to new membership the
moment it becomes successful. And any further increase in its
organization should be allowed to take place only with the most careful
foresight and after a painstaking sifting of those who apply for
membership. Only thus will it be possible to keep the kernel of the
movement intact and fresh and sound. Care must be taken that the conduct
of the movement is maintained exclusively in the hands of this original
nucleus. This means that the nucleus must direct the propaganda which
aims at securing general recognition for the movement. And the movement
itself, when it has secured power in its hands, must carry out all those
acts and measures which are necessary in order that its ideas should be
finally established in practice.


Also, Hitler was a fan of the Christian movement and used it to gain power.
wew lad, hope you didn't pull a muscle with that stretch. here's some more

Hitler-04-1.jpg


quote-we-are-socialists-we-are-enemies-of-today-s-capitalistic-economic-system-for-the-exploitation-adolf-hitler-55-12-18.jpg
 
was it the socialism or blaming 1% of the population for all of society's ills?
Actually more like how he campaigns and came to power. Also propaganda through media. Hitler was first to call the media false...I mean Hitler subordinates did that Mainly Yosef Goebbels. Also creating an enemy for his people .He used The blueprint for Judaism and Christianity to get him into power. Trump used the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _glaciers
Actually more like how he campaigns and came to power. Also propaganda through media. Hitler was first to call the media false...I mean Hitler subordinates did that Mainly Yosef Goebbels. Also creating an enemy for his people .He used The blueprint for Judaism and Christianity to get him into power. Trump used the same.
you can't both use the media as propaganda and make your name off of calling the media false

as for the "creating an enemy for his people", we're currently witnessing a war against cops, and a media narrative that white people are out to get blacks and the need to be afraid of "systemic racism"

i get why yall like to compare Hitler to President Trump, they're both loud and bombastic in their speech and command a certain amount of authority through their conviction. so are the majority of successful football coaches, are they all Hitler too? hell i've worked with restaurant dishwashers that could hype people up
 
Last edited:
wew lad, hope you didn't pull a muscle with that stretch. here's some more

Hitler-04-1.jpg


quote-we-are-socialists-we-are-enemies-of-today-s-capitalistic-economic-system-for-the-exploitation-adolf-hitler-55-12-18.jpg
While He spouted Sociialiist ideas He was not a Socialist He was a Nazi that used Socialist ideas to mask what he was a Nazi Dictator. He was not a socialist. Actually, Mussolini was a tad more socialist. But he was dictator..Sweden and Finland are better Socialist examples. Venezuela started Socialist but it has a dictator regime ..Many places say we are Socialists but few truly are. Even Hitler adopted capitalist ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _glaciers
you can't both use the media as propaganda and make your name off of calling the media false

as for the "creating an enemy for his people", we're currently witnessing a war against cops, and a media narrative that white people are out to get blacks and the need to be afraid of "systemic racism"

i get why yall like to compare Hitler to President Trump, they're both loud and bombastic in their speech and command a certain amount of authority through their conviction. so are the majority of successful football coaches, are they all Hitler too? hell i've worked with restaurant dishwashers that could hype people up
Well Hitler did He discredited the free press Then Goebbels Created hiss own Press and pushed Hitler's propaganda calling all other news fake...I liken this to Trump. His right-hand man created Breiibert news media and pushed Trump's views I am not judging Trump. I just see parallels in how he came to power. History will judge him.I just find it fascinating
 
  • Like
Reactions: _glaciers
While He spouted Sociialiist ideas He was not a Socialist He was a Nazi that used Socialist ideas to mask what he was a Nazi Dictator. He was not a socialist. Actually, Mussolini was a tad more socialist. But he was dictator..Sweden and Finland are better Socialist examples. Venezuela started Socialist but it has a dictator regime ..Many places say we are Socialists but few truly are. Even Hitler adopted capitalist ideas.
Under Hitler, Germany had socialized education and medicine which are the two main components that "democratic socialists" are arguing for.

he was absolutely a Socialist, he just thought that for socialism to work everyone had to be the same race. the whole mechanism of Socialism hinges on an overwhelmingly power central government, which a Dictatorship cannot exist without. had Hitler not gained total control of the Government, he couldn't have done what he did.

if your argument is that, Socialism is just the vehicle that led to his dictatorship, it begs the question of how long it takes under socialism for someone to want to be in that driver's seat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
Well Hitler did He discredited the free press Then Goebbels Created hiss own Press and pushed Hitler's propaganda calling all other news fake...I liken this to Trump. His right-hand man created Breiibert news media and pushed Trump's views I am not judging Trump. I just see parallels in how he came to power. History will judge him.I just find it fascinating
Breitbart News was created by Andrew Breitbart before Obama was elected President, it was not created by Steve Bannon.

edit: I have to say, I appreciate how you're capable of having a rational, reasonable discussion that hasn't delved into hysterics. This is enjoyable banter
 
Under Hitler, Germany had socialized education and medicine which are the two main components that "democratic socialists" are arguing for.

he was absolutely a Socialist, he just thought that for socialism to work everyone had to be the same race. the whole mechanism of Socialism hinges on an overwhelmingly power central government, which a Dictatorship cannot exist without. had Hitler not gained total control of the Government, he couldn't have done what he did.

if your argument is that, Socialism is just the vehicle that led to his dictatorship, it begs the question of how long it takes under socialism for someone to want to be in that driver's seat.
Hitler was a Fascist. His Party used the Name Democratic Socialist Party. Let's just say no they were not that. Its like Bernie Sanders He is not a true Socialist. but he does have socialist ideas. Its why many Europeans laugh whe they here Bernie called Socialist
 
Breitbart News was created by Andrew Breitbart before Obama was elected President, it was not created by Steve Bannon.

edit: I have to say, I appreciate how you're capable of having a rational, reasonable discussion that hasn't delved into hysterics. This is enjoyable banter
Still, it was used as a vehicle for Trump, and your welcome. I enjoy good banter without getting Mad ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
 
Hitler was a Fascist. His Party used the Name Democratic Socialist Party. Let's just say no they were not that. Its like Bernie Sanders He is not a true Socialist. but he does have socialist ideas. Its why many Europeans laugh whe they here Bernie called Socialist


Still, it was used as a vehicle for Trump, and your welcome. I enjoy good banter without getting Mad ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

"Fascism" isn't a political party, no matter how much Wikipedia contributors want to edit the definition. Fascism is when the Government violently suppresses all opposition and completely controls the means of industry and press. Nobody runs for the "fascist" party.

We're football fans, lets put it in those terms and replace fascist with "dominant". The 2017 UCF team was dominant. They didn't have an offensive philosophy that was under the term of "dominant". Hell, look no further than today's Nebraska Cornhuskers for that proof. They were dominant as a result of being able to impose their will on literally everybody they played through forcible opposition.

If President Trump was a fascist, there wouldn't be an election happening in a week, there wouldn't have been a nearly 4 year investigation staining his term, there wouldn't even be a confirmation process for his SCOTUS picks, there wouldn't be a split Congress.

If your measurement for Fascism is, "he said the news lies sometimes", then that's just a weak argument to make. You know what happened after Hitler demonized the news? The Nazi's militaristically seized all of the printing plants in Germany, stormed their offices and put all of their employees in concentration camps.
source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-in-the-third-reich

Here's a collection of tweets from a New York Times employee, who faced zero repercussions for what she said. Would a racist, fascist regime really let that go unpunished?

fill-661x496
 
The only similarity is that Hitler wanted to make Germany great again. However, I don’t think that Trump is going resort to invading countries and Genocide to MAGA
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
The only similarity is that Hitler wanted to make Germany great again. However, I don’t think that Trump is going resort to invading countries and Genocide to MAGA
The thing that the left doesn't understand is that Trump doesn't villianize a group of people, he villainizes an ideology. They want so badly to think Trump is a racist or xenophobe but he is an equal opportunity critic. Woman, man, black, white, catholic, atheist, Muslim, Hispanic, etc all get equal treatment from him if he disagrees with them.
 
Hitler had complete control over the media which is what Democrats are close to having today. The reason we have these idiotic ideas about covid is media control. Everyone got brainwashed and we are not even looking at science. Democrats are about government control.

The Nazi's rose to power by demonizing the free press - popularizing the term "lugenpresse" meaning "lying press." The Nazi's seized control of media operations after spending years convincing their base of support that those media organizations cannot be trusted.

So in hindsight - who was right? Was the "mainstream press" wrong for challenging the Nazi party during it's rise? Or was Hitler correct to call every negative story about him and the Nazi Party "fake news"?

Thus the "fake news" era is a necessary one if an Authoritarian were ever able to truly capture control in the US. It would be incredibly hard to do so, but this is step 1. Convince ~40% of the country that every news organization who might try to hold you accountable is fake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
The thing that the left doesn't understand is that Trump doesn't villianize a group of people, he villainizes an ideology.
Ooooooh, that's what I failed to understand. Got it now.

Out of curiosity....
What was 'villainous' about the "Mexican" judge who was overseeing the Trump University case's ideology?

What was it about the ideology of John McCain or Trump's Republican primary contenders that he vilified back in '16?

Was Trump being "ideology-neutral" when he said after the White Supremacist march in Charlottesville that there were "fine people on both side"?
 
The thing that the left doesn't understand is that Trump doesn't villianize a group of people, he villainizes an ideology. They want so badly to think Trump is a racist or xenophobe but he is an equal opportunity critic. Woman, man, black, white, catholic, atheist, Muslim, Hispanic, etc all get equal treatment from him if he disagrees with them.

I almost agree with you 100% here and it's why "Trump is a racist" takes miss the bigger picture. Honestly, if there was a group called "illegal immigrants for Trump" he'd totally think they were great and probably try to grant them all citizenship. He's OK with anybody who's on Team Trump.

That said, I disagree with your take that he demonizes an "ideology" versus a group. I think Trump is consistent on two things - immigration and trade. Everything else is where he reads the political winds. I think Trump is very libertarian on a personal basis - like you described above. He'd be personally A-OK with an LGBTQ press secretary that cross-dresses everyday. At the same time, he's equally as OK with rolling back rights afforded to a marginalized group if he was convinced that helps him with his base.

He just doesn't care one way or another except how it impacts him personally. So he's not hostile towards many of these groups personally, but he's totally fine with strategies that are hostile to these groups if it works to his benefit. So he demonizes whoever is outside the Venn diagram of his support, but it's not ideological for him.
 
You have it backwards. The liberals control 100% of social media down to controlling what you see or read. Other media is 90% controlled by liberals. Kind of like Goebbels in Germany controlling how the masses think. Hitler was smart enough to know controlling media will control the masses. Good example is what they are doing with the Hunter Biden scandal.

Any other comparison is a waste of time. Nobody is killing millions of people in an extermination effort or evading multiple countries.

So basically every academic that seriously researches the rise and fall of democracies, authoritarians, etc are uniformly warning about what we are experiencing the US. If you wait until we're starting wars and exterminating people, then you've already lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
I almost agree with you 100% here and it's why "Trump is a racist" takes miss the bigger picture. Honestly, if there was a group called "illegal immigrants for Trump" he'd totally think they were great and probably try to grant them all citizenship. He's OK with anybody who's on Team Trump.

That said, I disagree with your take that he demonizes an "ideology" versus a group. I think Trump is consistent on two things - immigration and trade. Everything else is where he reads the political winds. I think Trump is very libertarian on a personal basis - like you described above. He'd be personally A-OK with an LGBTQ press secretary that cross-dresses everyday. At the same time, he's equally as OK with rolling back rights afforded to a marginalized group if he was convinced that helps him with his base.

He just doesn't care one way or another except how it impacts him personally. So he's not hostile towards many of these groups personally, but he's totally fine with strategies that are hostile to these groups if it works to his benefit. So he demonizes whoever is outside the Venn diagram of his support, but it's not ideological for him.


So basically every academic that seriously researches the rise and fall of democracies, authoritarians, etc are uniformly warning about what we are experiencing the US. If you wait until we're starting wars and exterminating people, then you've already lost.

I think this is a totally fair take and it's what frustrates me so much about him. Like as a black guy, I really don't believe HE himself is racist but I do believe what you mention above.

He's either an incredibly brilliant mastermind tactician or incredibly dumb and has no clue what is happening. Which is it? Which is worse? It's not him as Pres that I'm worried about, it's the fallout around him. But I'm also worried about the fallout on the other side after this cult like army Trump has built up. Either way we're fooked lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
While He spouted Sociialiist ideas He was not a Socialist He was a Nazi that used Socialist ideas to mask what he was a Nazi Dictator. He was not a socialist. Actually, Mussolini was a tad more socialist. But he was dictator..Sweden and Finland are better Socialist examples. Venezuela started Socialist but it has a dictator regime ..Many places say we are Socialists but few truly are. Even Hitler adopted capitalist ideas.
Except that neither Sweden nor Finland are socialist countries. Do go ahead and explain how socialism is great and all the places that faithfully implemented it were dictatorships not socialist countries. You’re still not going to distance the very real and inevitable downside of socialism from what you try to extol as the virtues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
I almost agree with you 100% here and it's why "Trump is a racist" takes miss the bigger picture. Honestly, if there was a group called "illegal immigrants for Trump" he'd totally think they were great and probably try to grant them all citizenship. He's OK with anybody who's on Team Trump.

That said, I disagree with your take that he demonizes an "ideology" versus a group. I think Trump is consistent on two things - immigration and trade. Everything else is where he reads the political winds. I think Trump is very libertarian on a personal basis - like you described above. He'd be personally A-OK with an LGBTQ press secretary that cross-dresses everyday. At the same time, he's equally as OK with rolling back rights afforded to a marginalized group if he was convinced that helps him with his base.

He just doesn't care one way or another except how it impacts him personally. So he's not hostile towards many of these groups personally, but he's totally fine with strategies that are hostile to these groups if it works to his benefit. So he demonizes whoever is outside the Venn diagram of his support, but it's not ideological for him.

Mostly agreed. Trump isnt ideological at all, he just wants power. Supposedly the only reason ran as a Republican is that he knew he couldnt win a Democratic primary, so even what party he ran for was strategic and not ideological.

I will say though, even if a person them self isnt personally racist, homophobic, etc, playing to an audience that is, still makes you a racist, even though your intent is power and not bigotry. But, let's also not forget Trump has a history of saying or doing racist things. He was sued for discrimination in the past, the central park 5 situation, etc etc. So he certainly has had his moments with racist stuff over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
Except that neither Sweden nor Finland are socialist countries. Do go ahead and explain how socialism is great and all the places that faithfully implemented it were dictatorships not socialist countries. You’re still not going to distance the very real and inevitable downside of socialism from what you try to extol as the virtues.

I dont really disagree with you on Finland and Sweden, but, if you dont consider them socialist, then there is no way you (or anyone) can consider the Democratic party socialist either, and obviously a lot of Republicans try to force that view.
 
Last edited:
I almost agree with you 100% here and it's why "Trump is a racist" takes miss the bigger picture. Honestly, if there was a group called "illegal immigrants for Trump" he'd totally think they were great and probably try to grant them all citizenship. He's OK with anybody who's on Team Trump.

That said, I disagree with your take that he demonizes an "ideology" versus a group. I think Trump is consistent on two things - immigration and trade. Everything else is where he reads the political winds. I think Trump is very libertarian on a personal basis - like you described above. He'd be personally A-OK with an LGBTQ press secretary that cross-dresses everyday. At the same time, he's equally as OK with rolling back rights afforded to a marginalized group if he was convinced that helps him with his base.

He just doesn't care one way or another except how it impacts him personally. So he's not hostile towards many of these groups personally, but he's totally fine with strategies that are hostile to these groups if it works to his benefit. So he demonizes whoever is outside the Venn diagram of his support, but it's not ideological for him.
I didn't use the term ideology to mean political ideology in the traditional way. Hes not conservative or liberal, he is Trumpist, which is an ego based world view where what he does doesn't matter just as long as you agree with him. You nailed it 100% though, especially the cross-dressing press secretary analogy. If there is was a "gays for Trump" group, he would tout himself as the biggest friend to gay people ever and say that gay people love him and that he's done more for them than anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
I think this is a totally fair take and it's what frustrates me so much about him. Like as a black guy, I really don't believe HE himself is racist but I do believe what you mention above.

He's either an incredibly brilliant mastermind tactician or incredibly dumb and has no clue what is happening. Which is it? Which is worse? It's not him as Pres that I'm worried about, it's the fallout around him. But I'm also worried about the fallout on the other side after this cult like army Trump has built up. Either way we're fooked lol.

I actually think he's pretty easy to figure out, but it's hard for the average person because we simply cannot relate with that level of narcissism. I don't believe Trump has any moral boundaries whatsoever. He views nothing through a lens of how it might impact other people, only how it impacts himself directly in the short term. It's purely transactional.

Trump wants to be a strong man authoritarian, but in the context of feeding his insatiable ago. He'll never be willing to put in the work or make the personal sacrifices (to his own ego) necessary to actually consolidate power, though he'd be happy to let people around him give it a try.

In many ways, we're fortunate we got Trump when we did. We're learning how vulnerable we are to a populist demagogue. How easy it is for a POTUS to simply ignore norms and laws with zero consequence. He's showing us all the holes in the system. I don't think he's a bumbling idiot, I just think he's so flawed by his ego that his decisions appear irrational to many rational people - but they're actually quite rational if the overwhelming objective is the ego itself.

If you believe Trump is a symptom rather than the disease, then he's the symptom that alerted us to go to the hospital. Without him, the disease may have reached the point of no return before we realized what was happening.
 
I didn't use the term ideology to mean political ideology in the traditional way. Hes not conservative or liberal, he is Trumpist, which is an ego based world view where what he does doesn't matter just as long as you agree with him. You nailed it 100% though, especially the cross-dressing press secretary analogy. If there is was a "gays for Trump" group, he would tout himself as the biggest friend to gay people ever and say that gay people love him and that he's done more for them than anyone.

Bingo.

I don't think most people know how to relate to this. I had someone ask me the other day "you're really not going to vote for someone just because of a personality flaw?"

If the President of the United States regularly makes decisions purely based on which outcome best feeds their massive ego, that's not a personality flaw - it's a massive risk to the stability and national security of the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
Except that neither Sweden nor Finland are socialist countries. Do go ahead and explain how socialism is great and all the places that faithfully implemented it were dictatorships not socialist countries. You’re still not going to distance the very real and inevitable downside of socialism from what you try to extol as the virtues.

Which is precisely why I think "socialism" as a scare tactic in US politics is losing it's power. It elicits horror and dread in a (shrinking) group of the electorate that associates it with with socialist authoritarian regimes, and elicits shoulder shrugs or thumbs up from a growing group that relate it to Social Democracies in Europe.

But is it really more wrong to call Sweden "socialist" than it to call the US "capitalist"? They're both mixed economies. Neither are pure capitalist or pure socialist.
 
Bingo.

I don't think most people know how to relate to this. I had someone ask me the other day "you're really not going to vote for someone just because of a personality flaw?"

If the President of the United States regularly makes decisions purely based on which outcome best feeds their massive ego, that's not a personality flaw - it's a massive risk to the stability and national security of the country.
Theoretically, yes its a huge risk. With Trump, we now have 4 years worth of track record and it doesn't seem like he himself really presents that risk. JMO, but I think the reaction to him has created a much bigger risk to stability and national security than anything he has done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
it would be kinda hilarious if Trump loses and then refuses to leave for the better part of 3 years so we can hear leftists cry about Biden not getting an opportunity to get anything done when the other side still can't accept the results of the election.

by yall's own admission, Trump apparently has numerous radicalized militias as well as the police at his beckon and call, so why would you expect any different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
Good point, and remember, he states he's never been wrong.
It took almost no time at all to find Trump admitting that he was wrong. I know it doesn’t fit in with the movement to cast Trump as Hitler that started as soon as he won the primary in 2016 and I’m sure that disappoints you mightily. Of course, he’s had 4 years (2 of which with a Republican Congress) to do all of that which you are freaked out about and hasn’t done it. I’m sure that won’t stop all of you that buy so heavily into the hyperbole coming from your media and your lawmakers.

When all is said and done and Trump hasn’t done any of the Hitler things that you are all so up-in-arms about that you’ve destroyed relationships around you, what will you do then? Will you admit your wrongs and repair the previous fabric of your social lives? Or will you wallow in your new echo chamber building momentum around increasingly crazy ideas until something finally breaks?



 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
Theoretically, yes its a huge risk. With Trump, we now have 4 years worth of track record and it doesn't seem like he himself really presents that risk. JMO, but I think the reaction to him has created a much bigger risk to stability and national security than anything he has done.

I see the risk as one that increases over time. Trump demands loyalty to himself personally, not the country or Constitution. People like Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, etc can only take it so long, and they're getting replaced with the kind of "yes men" Trump's ego requires.

The single biggest check on Trump right now is re-election. There's reporting that he wants to fire Wray, Haspel, and Esper if re-elected. That's nuts. Those are all his appointees, but he wants people who will publicly defend him and harass his political enemies in those positions. Even Barr hasn't done enough to get Trump's approval.

A second Trump term eliminates the single biggest guardrail on his presidency - re-election. It also validates his efforts to politicize the DOJ/FBI etc as being affirmed by the public. So right now, there are a bunch of people around Trump advising him on the electoral implications of various things. Whatever counter-weight that provides to his actions is gone if he's re-elected.

So whatever risks are present in the first 4 years are amplified by some factor over the following 4 years. I'm not saying Trump is going to try an overt power grab, but IF that was the end game, your strategy for years 4-8 would look much different than years 1-4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
I see the risk as one that increases over time. Trump demands loyalty to himself personally, not the country or Constitution. People like Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, etc can only take it so long, and they're getting replaced with the kind of "yes men" Trump's ego requires.

The single biggest check on Trump right now is re-election. There's reporting that he wants to fire Wray, Haspel, and Esper if re-elected. That's nuts. Those are all his appointees, but he wants people who will publicly defend him and harass his political enemies in those positions. Even Barr hasn't done enough to get Trump's approval.

A second Trump term eliminates the single biggest guardrail on his presidency - re-election. It also validates his efforts to politicize the DOJ/FBI etc as being affirmed by the public. So right now, there are a bunch of people around Trump advising him on the electoral implications of various things. Whatever counter-weight that provides to his actions is gone if he's re-elected.

So whatever risks are present in the first 4 years are amplified by some factor over the following 4 years. I'm not saying Trump is going to try an overt power grab, but IF that was the end game, your strategy for years 4-8 would look much different than years 1-4.
Or, Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly are part of the Washington swamp that wanted to do things similar to previous administrations and wouldn’t follow the vision of the CinC. There’s always another way to look at it even when the media paints a very one-sided picture.

Wray should be fired at this point. There hasn’t been a sweeping cleanup of the FBI, there hasn’t been an elimination of political leaks, and some of the seminal investigations have gone nowhere. Produce or get out. America, on both sides, are tired of the inaction of career pols and bureaucrats that are far more interesting in protecting their power circles than doing their jobs.
 
Or, Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly are part of the Washington swamp that wanted to do things similar to previous administrations and wouldn’t follow the vision of the CinC. There’s always another way to look at it even when the media paints a very one-sided picture.

Wray should be fired at this point. There hasn’t been a sweeping cleanup of the FBI, there hasn’t been an elimination of political leaks, and some of the seminal investigations have gone nowhere. Produce or get out. America, on both sides, are tired of the inaction of career pols and bureaucrats that are far more interesting in protecting their power circles than doing their jobs.

Look if Mattis bails on Trump over policy and that's it, that's totally different. If that was the case, you don't publish an op-ed that says this:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
You're comments on Wray are out there. You're not complaining about process, transparency, truth - etc - you're complaining about the investigations not providing results you've convinced yourself are true. You're not complaining the Chris Wray's FBI has been too political, you're arguing they haven't been political enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan
ADVERTISEMENT