4 ms·

Even if a person doesn't support Trump, actively interfering with and sabotaging an elected official who holds the highest executive office in the country seems

by vivekd 8y ago

Even if a person doesn't support Trump, actively interfering with and sabotaging an elected official who holds the highest executive office in the country seems like a bad thing to do. If a person doesn't like the president, the proper recourse is public criticism working to ensure he doesn't get re-elected and if possible impeachment . . . the proper recourse is never actively sabotaging the president of the United States. There may be exceptional circumstances where the president is violating the constitution, however, we still have a functional supreme court so that exception isn't raised in this circumstance.

cam_l 8y ago
I am not so sure about this argument. Each person is their own person. Employees are not computers. Provided they are not breaking any laws, but merely using the resources and power at their disposal. I think the truth of it is.. this is just how government functions. In fact, no one would bat an eyelid if this were for personal gain. Ideology seems to really bother people from either side of the political spectrum. But I mean, personally I would have an issue with doing something like this myself. It does seem dishonest, but then.. Trump.
- mc32 8y ago
  Glenn Greenwald (a favorite for those who tend left) agrees with parent: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1037450113004785666 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1037450113004785666
  - harry8 8y ago
    Oooh, I like and read (and frequently disagree with) Glenn and I really don't consider myself "left." Glenn is one of the better journalists around. Especially when you disagree with his point. It's well argued and well supported. To hell with the Donald, Glenn makes a solid point here. Un-elected cabals secretly usurping democratically elected politicians aren't a good thing for democracy, left and right.
  - cam_l 8y ago
    I don't disagree with Glenn's point of view, and certainly was not suggesting I agree with the behaviour. Quite the opposite. As I pointed out, i think it is grossly unethical. I was making a couple of more subtle points. What I was getting at is that the only difference between this unelected group of people trying to usurp government and others is they think they are not doing it primarily for personal gain. And that it is the ideology (whichever political side it is on or against) and the fragility of democracy, that is actually what scares people rather than the usurping bit.. that is just business as usual. The other point is that if you allow yourself and your position to be used to do things you think are wrong, this is also unethical. You have a responsibility as a person to use what power you have to change things for the better. I don't personally believe you should compromise your ethics to do this. There is tension between these two things.
mjevans 8y ago
My view is that whomever authored the anonymous letter believes they are a true patriot and I agree with them at least within the motivations presented in the letter. It is better for someone to be loyal to the ideals of freedom, democracy, and making the world a better place, even if only out of purely selfish interests (that still fits an enlightened nationalist ideology, which is also plausible of whomever wrote the letter); than it is to be loyal to any single individual. Particularly one whom someone believes does NOT ascribe or live up to those ideals.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > My view is that whomever authored the anonymous letter believes they are a true patriot Very well may be. But it also very well may be somebody like Timothy McVeigh or David Duke believed they are true patriots. That does not make their actions any better - of course, their actions are very bad, and incomparable with writing an article in NYT, the point is even such bad people can claim to be "true patriots" - anybody can. Believing you yourself is a good guy is not enough, everybody is a hero in their own story. But we have certain rules to ensure that does not lead one too far out - both inside and outside the law. > It is better for someone to be loyal to the ideals of freedom, democracy, and making the world a better place There's no objective test for being loyal to the ideals, only subjective opinion. And everybody is willing to declare themselves lovers of freedom. Some terrorists could talk about their love of freedom for hours. Of course, what they mean by "freedom" is different from what you and I would mean. But allowing people to issue themselves indulgences from otherwise unacceptable behavior just because they believe it's for the best purposes is too easy road to abuse to take it as any kind of an acceptable rule.
cliffordthedog 8y ago
> the proper recourse is never actively sabotaging the president of the United States Why not? > however, we still have a functional supreme court We don't. Mitch McConnell saw to that 2 years ago.
- travmatt 8y ago
  Are you asking why Americans shouldn’t support an unelected cabal of secret plotters who seek to impose their ideology onto America by staging a coup?
  - cliffordthedog 8y ago
    No, I'm saying "don't undermine the president" applies, at most, to the people in the executive branch of the government.
    - travmatt 8y ago
      The op-ed was written by a senior member of the executive branch, so I’m not sure how that has any bearing on what’s being discussed here.
      - cliffordthedog 8y ago
        Oh I totally agree with the statement when restricted to people like the author. Even then it depends on the definition of "undermining". I think the author is cowardly, disingenuous, and dangerous.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    There's no coup here. There are people upholding their sworn oath to defend the Constitution, and trying to make sense out of a logically incoherent President who hired them to do just that. The President can fire them at any time if he dislikes their work.
- hhjinks 8y ago
  > Why not? Because that's undermining the will of the people. Like it or not, per today, Trump was legitimately and fairly elected. This very well might change in the future, but as of now, we have to assume his presidency is legitimate, no matter how vile or incompetent he is.
kapauldo 8y ago
Jefferson did this to Adams. It's not new.

by vivekd 8y ago

cam_l 8y ago

I am not so sure about this argument. Each person is their own person. Employees are not computers. Provided they are not breaking any laws, but merely using the resources and power at their disposal. I think the truth of it is.. this is just how government functions. In fact, no one would bat an eyelid if this were for personal gain. Ideology seems to really bother people from either side of the political spectrum. But I mean, personally I would have an issue with doing something like this myself. It does seem dishonest, but then.. Trump.

mc32 8y ago
Glenn Greenwald (a favorite for those who tend left) agrees with parent: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1037450113004785666 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1037450113004785666
- harry8 8y ago
  Oooh, I like and read (and frequently disagree with) Glenn and I really don't consider myself "left." Glenn is one of the better journalists around. Especially when you disagree with his point. It's well argued and well supported. To hell with the Donald, Glenn makes a solid point here. Un-elected cabals secretly usurping democratically elected politicians aren't a good thing for democracy, left and right.
- cam_l 8y ago
  I don't disagree with Glenn's point of view, and certainly was not suggesting I agree with the behaviour. Quite the opposite. As I pointed out, i think it is grossly unethical. I was making a couple of more subtle points. What I was getting at is that the only difference between this unelected group of people trying to usurp government and others is they think they are not doing it primarily for personal gain. And that it is the ideology (whichever political side it is on or against) and the fragility of democracy, that is actually what scares people rather than the usurping bit.. that is just business as usual. The other point is that if you allow yourself and your position to be used to do things you think are wrong, this is also unethical. You have a responsibility as a person to use what power you have to change things for the better. I don't personally believe you should compromise your ethics to do this. There is tension between these two things.

mjevans 8y ago

My view is that whomever authored the anonymous letter believes they are a true patriot and I agree with them at least within the motivations presented in the letter. It is better for someone to be loyal to the ideals of freedom, democracy, and making the world a better place, even if only out of purely selfish interests (that still fits an enlightened nationalist ideology, which is also plausible of whomever wrote the letter); than it is to be loyal to any single individual. Particularly one whom someone believes does NOT ascribe or live up to those ideals.

smsm42 8y ago
> My view is that whomever authored the anonymous letter believes they are a true patriot Very well may be. But it also very well may be somebody like Timothy McVeigh or David Duke believed they are true patriots. That does not make their actions any better - of course, their actions are very bad, and incomparable with writing an article in NYT, the point is even such bad people can claim to be "true patriots" - anybody can. Believing you yourself is a good guy is not enough, everybody is a hero in their own story. But we have certain rules to ensure that does not lead one too far out - both inside and outside the law. > It is better for someone to be loyal to the ideals of freedom, democracy, and making the world a better place There's no objective test for being loyal to the ideals, only subjective opinion. And everybody is willing to declare themselves lovers of freedom. Some terrorists could talk about their love of freedom for hours. Of course, what they mean by "freedom" is different from what you and I would mean. But allowing people to issue themselves indulgences from otherwise unacceptable behavior just because they believe it's for the best purposes is too easy road to abuse to take it as any kind of an acceptable rule.

cliffordthedog 8y ago

> the proper recourse is never actively sabotaging the president of the United States Why not? > however, we still have a functional supreme court We don't. Mitch McConnell saw to that 2 years ago.

travmatt 8y ago
Are you asking why Americans shouldn’t support an unelected cabal of secret plotters who seek to impose their ideology onto America by staging a coup?
- cliffordthedog 8y ago
  No, I'm saying "don't undermine the president" applies, at most, to the people in the executive branch of the government.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    The op-ed was written by a senior member of the executive branch, so I’m not sure how that has any bearing on what’s being discussed here.
    - cliffordthedog 8y ago
      Oh I totally agree with the statement when restricted to people like the author. Even then it depends on the definition of "undermining". I think the author is cowardly, disingenuous, and dangerous.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  There's no coup here. There are people upholding their sworn oath to defend the Constitution, and trying to make sense out of a logically incoherent President who hired them to do just that. The President can fire them at any time if he dislikes their work.
hhjinks 8y ago
> Why not? Because that's undermining the will of the people. Like it or not, per today, Trump was legitimately and fairly elected. This very well might change in the future, but as of now, we have to assume his presidency is legitimate, no matter how vile or incompetent he is.

kapauldo 8y ago

Jefferson did this to Adams. It's not new.