Mattis goes against Trump.

it looks like trump made a rash declaration to please his base, then the team that drafted the actual order with all the proper actual wording and authority, left several large loopholes in it. whether this was done with trump's knowledge or not is hard to say, but if he's not reading what he's signing or doesn't understand it, that's pretty much his fault.

it's smart to have those loopholes in and undercut the substance of those ill-thought out tweets, especially since any ban that's enacted now would probably have to be walked back in the near future. now trump can say he promised and pretend that it's someone else's fault if it doesn't happen, and the 20% of america that thinks he #s gold can keep on with their praise party....

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Aazadan

No. No coup.

We're just witnessing men doing what they think is right despite the ignorance of the man in charge.

Mattis does not care if he is removed next.

Mattis is my favorite of the Trump appointees. He's a respectable individual -- that can't be said for many of them, most notably the AG.

It's the opposite. Emperor Snowflake needs to leave because he's not on board with an American agenda and is a Russian puppet.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: [post=22617700]

Sick of these idiots not serving the President. Ifthey are not on board with his agenda they need to leave

a reply to: Aazadan

Trump would have had to approve this, despite the media's attempt to make this look like Mattis going out of command chain. Simple fact here, Trump could come out on stage tomorrow wearing a dress and spouting mental delusions of being a woman and he'd not see one iota of political gain from those presently against him for it. He would only lose some of the supporters who voted for him by doing so. The best course of action for him in this, if he believes the study is important enough to be completed before the final decision/action is taken, is to have Mattis be the public face of the choice to hold off on implementing the ban. Mattis isn't concerned about keeping his supporters happy nor does he care about wooing new supporters, he's simply the mouthpiece.

It's similar to how Bush used Colin Powell as the public face of the early entry into the Iraq war.

Good lord - why does everything have to be a coup or a rebuke or some form of rebellion??? The media are intent on lying out of their asses to create their version of reality.

Mattis said he is working on a proposal FOR the President on how he IMPLEMENTS the policy - and it relates to existing transgenders in the military.

www.slate.com...

Here's another one.
thehill.com...

Trump claims fire and fury, and that the time for talk is over.

Tillerson and Mattis meanwhile are ignoring Trump and trying to find diplomatic solutions.

The executive branch is not speaking with a united voice, and it's because Trumps cabinet is strongly disagreeing with him.

originally posted by: fiverx313
it looks like trump made a rash declaration to please his base, then the team that drafted the actual order with all the proper actual wording and authority, left several large loopholes in it. whether this was done with trump's knowledge or not is hard to say, but if he's not reading what he's signing or doesn't understand it, that's pretty much his fault.

it's smart to have those loopholes in and undercut the substance of those ill-thought out tweets, especially since any ban that's enacted now would probably have to be walked back in the near future. now trump can say he promised and pretend that it's someone else's fault if it doesn't happen, and the 20% of america that thinks he #s gold can keep on with their praise party....

Here's the problem. Mattis is doing this for the right reasons, but the fact that it's happening indicates there's a huge problem with the system. What if this was back in 1950 and the order was to desegregate the military? Would it have been ok to allow the generals the leeway to delay/oppose the order?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Its more likely that Trump is giving lip service to the masses while deferring to people in the know. Think of him as CEO making brash verbal statements, but having his CFO or Controller telling him he can't fund it.

Maybe tomorrow he will promise unicorns.

Maybe I'm over reaching with my coup description. The events I'm describing are real though.

The other day Tillerson broke with Trump and said Trump speaks for himself, the State Department speaks for America.
Today Tillerson broke with Trump again and said military action is (for now) off the table with NK. We're working on diplomacy.

Mattis last week told the military to not worry about what's going on at the top. Focus on their jobs and he'll make sure things work out (in reference to the transgendered ban).
Mattis this week, used a study on transgenders in the military to delay implementing Trumps order.
Mattis today, said that the US will use diplomacy, not war, to deal with North Korea.

Kelly booted Bannon, Gorka, Miller, and others who had Trumps ear. Ivanka and Jared got an official boot too (though they can stay on for a couple more months). Trumps entire inner circle who was running this Presidency has been kicked. Kelly now determines where Trump is, and what/when he's doing things. Trump is free to run his mouth on camera (or twitter), but his damaging outside influences have been removed.

Congress is openly hostile to the President. McConnell and the President haven't even spoken in nearly 3 months. Ryan's not doing much better.

Pence is going around preparing a run for office.

It's pretty obvious to me what's going on here. When even a guy like Mattis is defying or speaking out against the President 3 times in a week (and we're only on Wednesday), it's clear that the President isn't calling the shots anymore.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Here's the problem. Mattis is doing this for the right reasons, but the fact that it's happening indicates there's a huge problem with the system. What if this was back in 1950 and the order was to desegregate the military? Would it have been ok to allow the generals the leeway to delay/oppose the order?

the order was written with that leeway in it. it didn't have to be.

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: Aazadan
Here's the problem. Mattis is doing this for the right reasons, but the fact that it's happening indicates there's a huge problem with the system. What if this was back in 1950 and the order was to desegregate the military? Would it have been ok to allow the generals the leeway to delay/oppose the order?

the order was written with that leeway in it. it didn't have to be.

Trump didn't write the order, he just signed it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Trump didn't write the order, he just signed it.

he should have read it, then.

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: Aazadan
Trump didn't write the order, he just signed it.

he should have read it, then.

You're giving Trump way too much credit. He literally doesn't have the attention span to read something that long.

originally posted by: Aazadan
You're giving Trump way too much credit. He literally doesn't have the attention span to read something that long.

then if the president is that incompetent, shouldn't you be relieved that someone is subverting him?

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: Aazadan
You're giving Trump way too much credit. He literally doesn't have the attention span to read something that long.

then if the president is that incompetent, shouldn't you be relieved that someone is subverting him?

Yes and no. It's good for the stability of the nation, but at the same time it undermines our form of government.

I'm not one who believes in absolutes, sometimes something like this is warranted for a limited amount of time. Too much of it though, and we'll fall into a dictatorship.

a reply to: Aazadan

Very well then...

Show me an example of the President taking the advice of the military on a civil matter... Show me a policy he has been fed, which is the issue of a general, but has nothing to do with the military, logistics or any related subject. Listen, I hate the simpering, narcissistic, bloated moron that you have sitting in your Oval Office at the moment, as much as the next left leaning, worldly and aware individual. But just because I have a bias against him as a person, and believe he is incompetent, does not mean that I am prepared to go against every central belief I hold about due diligence.

I accept, and have done for years, because there has been evidence to prove it, that the intelligence services of the United States and the United Kingdom, are the controlling share owners in the terror networks they say they are in the midst of a war against. I accept, because there are clear indications of it, that my own government, and indeed the government of the United States of America, as well as many other world governments, are controlled by an unholy alliance of secrecy and corporate interference, known as the military industrial complex, as well as the separate but related entity which is the global intelligence industrial complex. I understand and accept that war as we know it is a business transaction and nothing more, and that the last time someone went to war for a half decent reason, was when the allies had to fight the Nazis.

But I believe these things because there is evidence of them. There is no reason to suggest that generals are making calls about the creation of law and the administration of the nation. I have a tendency to work things out by a process similar to that which identifies the locations of black holes, without being able to directly image them. I know that where it is impossible to look at a thing directly, one can none the less identify it by watching its effects on other things, the pull and the push it exerts on matter and energy passing near to it.

But even by that method, there is no wave being made in policy, which suggests that anything like what you are talking about, is taking place. The daily briefing being delivered by a general is by the by, because the important thing here is what choices are being made, what policies are being put forward, and who devised them. At present, there is no reason to suspect for even a moment, that the policy coming out of the White House, that the direction in which Trump jumps on any given topic, is being dictated by generals, any more than there was reason to suggest that in the case of Obama, or Bush before him. I do not mind hanging Trump (metaphorically) because he is a gormless halfwit, with all the charisma and actual capability of a freeze dried jellyfish, and less spine, but suggesting his Presidency has been usurped by some military figures, to a greater degree than any other presidency, or for that matter, without his express consent, and that military figures now control policy and direction with regard to everything from how state run schools are funded, to how the postal service operates, is an absolute overreach at the very best, and an invention which takes away from the very real problem of having a Tango fascist as President, replacing the reality of the issue with an obfuscation.

Lets not give the man an out. His idiocy is his own, just as much as Obama and Bush and Clinton before him, were responsible for their own failings.

Now, you can question how much control they had over what they did, what happened on their watch, and if you like we can discuss the fact that the CIA from conception to present day, was created in an unconstitutional manner, is beyond the oversight of the people, how Truman was both a founder of and a critic of the agency itself, how it is part of the deep state, how the deep state and the shadow government together are operating to undermine ALL people powered governance, how, since the "War on Terror" began, these groups work together toward the goal of "continuity of government", under the specific legal circumstances of a war footing, despite being the creators and puppet masters of all players in the current conflicts, regardless of what it appears like on the surface...

But nothing is happening here, in the Trump Presidency, that was not happening to Bush, to Obama, to those who came before them. Trump, you will recall, was supposed to be about to turn all this on its head, to kick out the rot. If he fails to do that, and complies with the deep state, the shadow government, and any unreasonable interference in his Presidential duty as he sees it, from the very forces he SAID he was there to combat, then he needs to own that weakness. If he is strong, then he will refuse to engage with any "orders" given him by generals or other figures, and what he does will be his own fault. If he was blowing smoke up the collective arse of the population of the United States, then that is also his own fault.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Show me an example of the President taking the advice of the military on a civil matter...

Foreign policy is now being conducted by the Pentagon.

There is no reason to suggest that generals are making calls about the creation of law and the administration of the nation.

The creation of law, mostly falls under Congress. The President merely signs bills into law, and at this point Trump is so desperate to say he's done anything, that he would likely sign virtually anything that can make it's way through Congress. Very little is doing so however.

But nothing is happening here, in the Trump Presidency, that was not happening to Bush, to Obama, to those who came before them. Trump, you will recall, was supposed to be about to turn all this on its head, to kick out the rot. If he fails to do that, and complies with the deep state, the shadow government, and any unreasonable interference in his Presidential duty as he sees it, from the very forces he SAID he was there to combat, then he needs to own that weakness. If he is strong, then he will refuse to engage with any "orders" given him by generals or other figures, and what he does will be his own fault. If he was blowing smoke up the collective arse of the population of the United States, then that is also his own fault.

I don't believe in a deep state. This shadow government Trump supporters talk about, I don't think exists. There are officials who are appointed to positions who weild enormous power, and they're lifers in those positions but it's not some shadowy cabal. If anything, I think those people are a good thing because it keeps institutional knowledge in place between administrations. Trumps cry to get rid of people, is basically a cry to embrace ignorance by kicking out the people who know how things work. Despite his best efforts he's succeeding at that too, not because he's actually firing anyone (firing government workers is damn near impossible), but because his actions have been so corrupt and possibly illegal that people are resigning left and right.

This for example, is why Tillerson is furious with Trump and publicly breaking with him. In the week the State Department has lost 6 of their top 10 people at a time when it's already being underfunded and understaffed. We're on the verge of a complete government breakdown and no one wants to be associated with it.

Trump quite simply, is a weak leader. This goes back to a criticism I've had of him his entire life, and something I've mentioned multiple times while he was a candidate. Trump doesn't know how to negotiate or manage. The only thing he knows how to do is dictate orders under the threat of not providing a paycheck if those orders aren't carried out. That's not how the government functions though.

a reply to: Aazadan

Foreign policy is being conducted by the Pentagon?

Can you show me some evidence that when the leaders of nations wish to talk to the person in charge, they are referred to the Pentagon? Can you show me some evidence that the Pentagon is responsible for dealing with diplomatic functions pertaining to relations with the political leadership and administrations of other nations? Can you show me evidence, for example, that the Pentagon is now the sole organiser of Trumps foreign diplomatic trips, dealing with the Chinese on his behalf, operating in his place when it comes to negotiations with international players at meetings like the G7, or with regard to the UN, or any such thing?

Show me Aazadan. Do not just tell me this and that, show it to me. Throw me a bone here.

a reply to: TrueBrit

There's been an awful lot of wishful thinking and supposition in this thread, but not much solid.

It's a product of not understanding these processes and how they are implemented, who makes the decisions, and who is informed.

It's also a product of "Everything I don't understand is evil" when it comes to conspiracy theories. Remember that republicans did the same thing to Obama. Nothing good could ever come from Obama's presidency because he was the evil according to the right. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

a reply to: projectvxn

Oh, but it is not on the other foot at all, is it?

We still have those unable to see the wood for the trees, and support whomever happens to be in office, and those who actually have even the remotest chance of standing with the truth. Obama is:

a) IRRELEVANT NOW

b) Not nearly the shining beacon of freedom and democracy that some believe

None of that takes away however, from the issue at hand.

a reply to: TrueBrit

100% agreed.

I never understood the staunch support for politicians and the need to defend them even when they are right.

It isn't necessary. I believe in evidence. Half the crap Republicans accused Obama of had nothing to back it up. Same goes for the current POTUS with regard to the left.

Yes, Obama is irrelevant now, but I didn't use him as an example of relevancy, but to illustrate a point.