Someone allegedly wrote an anonymous letter to the New York Times claiming to be a White House employee who is supposedly “thwarting” the attempts of President Donald Trump to ruin the country? Say what? Who is this, some masked Antifa resistance guy hired to water plants?
If ruining the country means putting people back to work and the stock market doing well, then I guess that actually sounds like a good thing, right? You would think. This letter suggests the opposite and there are quite a bit of question marks that come with it. It’s an anonymous opinions piece, so who really cares, right?
First of all, if it’s anonymous, then how do we know it’s real? It’s also on the New York Times. So again, what are the chances that this letter is entirely fake, to begin with? What if someone from the New York Times wrote it?
The chances are pretty high that this letter could be fake. If it’s not, then whoever wrote it is a coward in the White House who needs to come forward and reveal themselves. It’s acceptable to not like the president if you come forward with facts and respect. Hiding behind an anonymous letter is a bit strange considering we have no evidence that this is real. A revelation of one’s self would open doors to discussion and no longer make this person hide. Wouldn’t that be nice to see someone step up?
We don’t want any masked scaredy-cats in the White House, do we?
*** UPDATE *** TRUMP HAS RESPONDED TO THIS ANONYMOUS OP-ED!!
The Failing New York Times! pic.twitter.com/SHsXvYKpBf
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018
OK, back to regular programming!
Jazz Shaw summed it up the best way possible.
If you publish an "anonymous op-ed" from the resistance, people inclined to hate Trump will believe it. Those who support him will assume it's fake or from a low level gossip. It accomplishes nothing. If you want honor, put the name on it and have them live with the results.
— Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) September 5, 2018
Let’s see what the letter talks about. I’ll just share a few parts of it.
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.
So, who are you? Please reveal yourself.
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.
Such as who? Don’t care to give names? Is that because whoever wrote this is probably not employed in the White House?
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.
I don’t see the point in anything that was just said there. We know Trump is adversarial, but he also makes deals like the one going on with Mexico and he got North Korea’s leader to simmer down a bit. That’s two historic moments. Ineffective? Only if you’re a Trump-hater you would believe this. Trump is having an amazing time in the White House considering he’s had no political experience, defeated someone who was basically penciled in by Democrats, and somehow has pulled it all together despite two years of crying from his haters.
If we’re pointing fingers, then point them at the people who are not working towards a greater America. Point them at all the obstructionists who won’t allow good policies to go through and work together on improving relations between parties. If you need any evidence of who the main problem is, then look at Kavanaugh’s hearings yesterday with all the Democrats either protesting or getting arrested. I didn’t know we could arrest adult toddlers like that! News to me! I can’t believe grown adults behave like that in a formal setting.
“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.
What’s wrong with that? What if the president receives advice from people and changes his mind? These are major decisions and people are allowed to change their mind if they see fit.
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.
That doesn’t even make sense. It’s the president’s job to talk to other world leaders, especially the powerhouses. Trump is making friends and allies. We’re not at war with Russia or North Korea, right? So we’re good there. Not sure why this was even brought up.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
I disagree. I think people are trying to take Trump out of office. It’s quite obvious, but they’re struggling to get something on him.
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.
We voted for him because we didn’t like what the Democrats presented. Could you imagine what things would be like if Hillary Clinton was president?
This op-ed from the NYT is irrelevant.
I rest my case.