[late]

"This week, the President is expected to take another scythe to the restraining bureaucracy by gutting the National Security Council itself, a rare remaining source of non-Trumpian thought in the government."

The government is becoming a criminal enterprise that is all about Trump, not the country.

"That's part of a reason why his presidency seems likely to set many new precedents for the behavior of the executive in the US political system before it ends -- and why the current period up until the next election could be a particularly intense ride for Trump and the nation."

That is the polite version.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/politics/donald-trump-presidency-joe-biden-impeachment/index.html

[blackjack21]

"This week, the President is expected to take another scythe to the restraining bureaucracy by gutting the National Security Council itself, a rare remaining source of non-Trumpian thought in the government."

That's what he should have done on day 1. Good for him. The bureaucracy is not meant to restrain the president. If it's not there to serve a democratically elected government, it's the enemy of democracy.

The government is becoming a criminal enterprise that is all about Trump, not the country.

Rubbish. The government grew too large, and it's time to downsize it. There are more government employees per citizen now than there was in 1940 at the height of the New Deal. There is simply nothing criminal about the president exercising the powers of the presidency.

[Patrickov]

I think the OP's point is not how Trump (rightfully or not) trumps the Government, but how checks and balances of Trump's (potential) power lost bit by bit.

[Politics_Observer]

@blackjack21

My understanding is that the National Security Council was increased under the Obama administration because of the importance of diplomacy in preventing astronomically costly wars. Gutting it might not be the smart thing to do for the country. But then again, Trump doesn't really seem to care about the country or constitution of checks and balances given that he wants absolute power to fill the void he has in his soul.

[late]

That's what he should have done on day 1. Good for him. The bureaucracy is not meant to restrain the president. If it's not there to serve a democratically elected government, it's the enemy of democracy.

We get it, you want a dictator, and you have almost no understanding of what good governance is.

[Politics_Observer]

@late

Check this out late. Looks like Congress is beginning to lose the power of the purse too:

Trump is also set to ignore another constitutional norm -- that Congress has the power of the purse -- by diverting billions more in already appropriated funding to pay for his border wall. The administration argues it does not require the approval of lawmakers for such steps. But lawmakers from both parties have complained about losing funding for projects within their own states and have argued the practice is symptomatic of a wider transfer of power from Capitol Hill to the White House.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/politics ... index.html

So essentially, these same Congressman, by standing 100% with Trump and their constituents who stood 100% with Trump and voted for Trump, can begin to lose taxpayer dollars and funding in their districts to pay for Trump's projects given that Congress has it looks like, for all intents and purposes lost some (and maybe is well on it's way to losing all if it hasn't already) of it's power of the purse. Trump is getting to where he can turn on the very people who voted for him and put him into power and I had warned that this is exactly what would happen in the past that he would eventually turn on his own fervent supporters. But that's what happens when you put short term gain for your party and yourself over the long term best interests of your country. Will he now make his Justice Department put Biden in jail even though Biden didn't do anything wrong? What will Trump make his "justice department" do as far as investigating and getting trumped up charges on anybody who could run against him and actually beat him?

[Patrickov]

I think at some point some people should simply admit they are incompetent.

[late]

@late

Check this out late. Looks like Congress is beginning to lose the power of the purse too:

They cut their own throats.

It's not a political party now, it's a suicide cult.

[Politics_Observer]

@late

I agree late. A lot of dictators in other countries maintain a sort of cult. I think Trump supporters are members of a political cult.

[blackjack21]

My understanding is that the National Security Council was increased under the Obama administration because of the importance of diplomacy in preventing astronomically costly wars.

That's a non-sequitur. The National Security Counsel provides counsel to the president on national security. They do not perform a diplomatic mission. The astronomically costly wars have mostly been started by the United States aided by spooks, not the State Department.

But then again, Trump doesn't really seem to care about the country or constitution of checks and balances given that he wants absolute power to fill the void he has in his soul.

All the Marianne Williamson weirdness aside, the National Security Counsel is subordinate to the president. There are virtually no checks and balances there.

We get it, you want a dictator, and you have almost no understanding of what good governance is.

Bureaucrats are not elected. The president is elected. I want the unelected bureaucrats subordinate to the elected officers of the government. If that's dictatorship, that's what I want.

[late]

Bureaucrats are not elected. The president is elected. I want the unelected bureaucrats subordinate to the elected officers of the government. If that's dictatorship, that's what I want.

Congress creates the institutions that handle the day to day business of running the country. Real presidents work with those institutions, instead of destroying them.

But it's nice, in a perverse way, to see you finally admit what you want.

[blackjack21]

Congress creates the institutions that handle the day to day business of running the country. Real presidents work with those institutions, instead of destroying them.

But it's nice, in a perverse way, to see you finally admit what you want.

The Senate doesn't advise or consent on the National Security Counsel. It's an office created by the president. It's not a federal department, or a cabinet-level matter. If the president wants to downsize it, that's his prerogative. I think downsizing government is a good thing. The only good bureaucrat is an unemployed bureaucrat.

[Rich]

That's a non-sequitur. The National Security Counsel provides counsel to the president on national security. They do not perform a diplomatic mission. The astronomically costly wars have mostly been started by the United States aided by spooks, not the State Department.

The Afghan war was a sop to an enraged public. In the aftermath of 9/11 the Bush administration was desperate to divert Americans anger away from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the real powers behind 9/11. Its utterly preposterous to think that Osama Bin Laden was allowed to prosecute a war from Taliban territory without the approval of the Pakistani and Saudi security apparatuses. Obviously neither they, nor Osama himself expect the Towers to actually collapse. The immediate aim of the Pakistanis was to get the sanctions against them lifted.

The Afghan war was meant to provide revenge, but it also had to be sold as nation building to salve liberal consciences, hence Laura Bush's absurd "No Afghan school girl left behind." Guantanamo Bay was set up to dress up this weak and cowardly policy as some how strong and manly.

The Iraq war was started because the removal of Saddam was the number one desire of Jewish supremacists. I supported it because it was the right thing to do, bringing majority rule to Iraq and strengthen the 90% Muslim Shia minority (on a world scale) against the greater enemy 100% Muslim Sunni majoirty. Obliviously the Bush administration had to think up some other rationalisations to cover this Jewish supremacist wish. Hence their absurd Libertarian fantasies about post Saddam Iraq as an Arab tiger economy. The Jewish supremacists were smart not to ever show any gratitude to us gentiles for our sacrifices, but merely to attack us evil Gentiles for not taking down Iran as well for us.

[late]

The only good bureaucrat is an unemployed bureaucrat.

That's pre-capitalist.

The Modern world, which was built because of capitalism, has a lot of needs. Plagues, for example, are considered a bad thing.

You just said we should let nature have it's way with us. Which is crazy.

The national government got involved in transportation, education, R&D and other things way back in the 1800s.

We did it because we had to, because it was simply the sane thing to do.

[maz]

"This week, the President is expected to take another scythe to the restraining bureaucracy by gutting the National Security Council itself, a rare remaining source of non-Trumpian thought in the government."

You mean the president can't fire bad actors, who may have even been spies for a foreign government?

[blackjack21]

The Afghan war was a sop to an enraged public.

To a significant extent, yes.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the Bush administration was desperate to divert Americans anger away from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the real powers behind 9/11. Its utterly preposterous to think that Osama Bin Laden was allowed to prosecute a war from Taliban territory without the approval of the Pakistani and Saudi security apparatuses.

Well I agree to a significant extent. I think the Saudis wanted the US military out of the KoSA, but the US was concerned about an aggressive Iraq especially after Khafji. As for Pakistan, that's why the war has lasted so long. The Taliban still operate out of Pakistan (Waziristan). That's why I found the CIA edits in "Left of Boom" so comical, because it was so obvious what border the author was referring to. It's why I have so little faith in the CIA anymore.

I supported it because it was the right thing to do, bringing majority rule to Iraq and strengthen the 90% Muslim Shia minority (on a world scale) against the greater enemy 100% Muslim Sunni majoirty.

I did too, but I was skeptical of the nation-building rhetoric but recall buying off on it and later regretting that part of it.

That's pre-capitalist.

The Modern world, which was built because of capitalism, has a lot of needs. Plagues, for example, are considered a bad thing.

You just said we should let nature have it's way with us. Which is crazy.

Obviously, I was being facetious.

Plagues, for example, are considered a bad thing.

Why? Don't you think the world is overpopulated and global warming is going to kill us all? Wouldn't a plague cull the herd so to speak?

[Big Steve-1]

"That's part of a reason why his presidency seems likely to set many new precedents for the behavior of the executive in the US political system before it ends -- and why the current period up until the next election could be a particularly intense ride for Trump and the nation."

True.

His behavior will be very different than anything that's come before, as he's not beholden to special interests or a political party. He does what he believes is right and doesn't concern himself with whether or not it's going to piss someone off.

But a dictator? I do love the dramatic flair, but no.

[late]

His behavior will be very different than anything that's come before, as he's not beholden to special interests or a political party.

He does what he believes is right and doesn't concern himself with whether or not it's going to piss someone off.

But a dictator? I do love the dramatic flair, but no.

He's beholden to the Cult.

He does what he thinks is good for himself. "I have a favor to ask you, though"...

Which does nothing to explain why he is doing everything a wannabe dictator does.

[late]

Obviously, I was being facetious.


Why? Don't you think the world is overpopulated and global warming is going to kill us all? Wouldn't a plague cull the herd so to speak?

It's facetious now that you have to defend it.

Here's why, capitalism requires stability. You can't let plagues run wild and expect it to not knock the economy on it's back. Which gets us back to your facetious hypocrisy.

This is real. The Reagan tried to let AIDS run wild because they thought it was god's punishment on the gays.

But the why behind the crazy doesn't matter, it's that it's crazy.

And some of what you advocate is batshit crazy.

[late]

You mean the president can't fire bad actors, who may have even been spies for a foreign government?

There is a procedure, which of course he doesn't follow.

If he did, he would have fired Guiliani and Parnas and Furman for getting used by Putin.

He also wouldn't fire some of the best we have, which he did...