@Raggedy Ann
of all people. The unfortunate fact is that Trump's most influential enemies are even crazier than he is.

“I genuinely do not think this is a mentally healthy president.

?

We all KNOW he is not a mentally healthy president. The problem is that Pence is equally unstable and Paul Ryan, next in the chain, is equally unhinged!

These folks are all idiots! Actually, they are nothing more than greedy bastards that have only looked out for their own pocketbooks and now suddenly, they are concerned about this freak because he is unhinged? YOU CREATED HIM, you dolt!

Rant over.

@riverlover I agree we need to develop new tactics. Marches, etc. worked in the '60s when there was a semblance, at least, of a functional press and the republic congresspersons were not robots manufactured somewhere in Oklahoma (i.e congress would actually evaluate issues and vote their consciences). Now, marches have no obvious effects on legislators and government officials. Marchers feel better, sure, but not much changes. Boycotts can work, but, as you say, they are slow. One of our primary tasks should be to figure out what tactics we can use to accomplish our goals, and this includes being open to completely new tactics.

to start breaking the entire system to bits. I have a pitchfork, a rock hammer, several chisels, and a broken foot.

c99, what can we come up with fast? Not a boycott, too slow. Marches may not be the way, and I currently can't. Have we stitched ourselves into a net?

@riverlover

…applies here:

"We are making enemies faster than we can kill them."

They are destroying themselves faster than we can put a plan together.

to start breaking the entire system to bits. I have a pitchfork, a rock hammer, several chisels, and a broken foot.

c99, what can we come up with fast? Not a boycott, too slow. Marches may not be the way, and I currently can't. Have we stitched ourselves into a net?

@Linda Wood @Linda Wood

He is such an innocent with all those Tweets. That's when I savor the thought of the orange lab rats suddenly discovering the full implications of US foreign policy. What a wonderful way for them to learn about geopolitics. Although I suspect that broadened spectrum of awareness would snap shut once more with a preciousssss Dem at the helm.

They built this.

exists for anyone paying attention to the new president and his staff, especially if we are focused on foreign policy.

The confession that I will make repeatedly is that my state of unease is combined with a state of hopeful happiness, based on the fact that once-oblivious liberals are now shocked and terrified by our foreign policy! Suddenly they get it that our wars have consequences! Suddenly, overnight, they are concerned that we might be on the verge of a war with Russia that could reach the United States, or even that we might have to accept refugees. AS IF, suddenly, we are no longer omnipotent, untouchable, and unquestionable, because the president is no longer a nice guy and is instead unstable, flakey, and unpredictable, WHEREAS BEFORE, we had a president who was a nice guy running a Defense Secretary planning to make nuclear weapons "more useable."

@native during the Nixon Administration before Robert Bork righted the DOJ ship to do the President's bidding:

A.G. Elliot Richardson appointed Cox in May of that year, after having given assurances to the House Judiciary Committee that he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate break-in of June 17, 1972. The appointment was created as a Career Reserved position in the Justice department, which meant (a) it came under the authority of the Attorney General, and (b) the incumbent could not be removed for any reason other than "for cause" (e.g., gross improprieties or malfeasance in office). Richardson had, in his confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate, given the explicit promise not to use his authority to dismiss the Watergate Special Prosecutor, unless for cause.

When Cox issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations recorded in the Oval Office and authorized by Nixon, the President initially refused to comply. On Friday, October 19, 1973, Nixon offered what was later known as the Stennis Compromise—asking the infamously hard-of-hearing Senator John C. Stennis of Mississippi to review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor's office. Cox refused the compromise that same evening and it was believed that there would be a short rest in the legal maneuvering while government offices were closed for the weekend.

However, on the following day (a Saturday) Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused, and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned.[4][5]

Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General, Robert Bork (as acting head of the Justice Department), to fire Cox. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had given personal assurances to Congressional oversight committees that they would not interfere, but Bork had not. Although Bork later claimed that he believed Nixon's order to be valid and appropriate, he still considered resigning to avoid being "perceived as a man who did the President's bidding to save my job."[6] Nevertheless, having been brought to the White House by limousine and sworn in as Acting Attorney General, Bork wrote the letter firing Cox.[7] Initially, the White House claimed to have fired Ruckelshaus, but as The Washington Post article written the next day pointed out, "The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned."

On November 14, 1973, federal District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell ruled that the dismissal of Cox was illegal, in the absence of a finding of extraordinary impropriety as specified in the regulation establishing the special prosecutor's office.[8] Congress was infuriated by the act, which was seen as a gross abuse of presidential power. The public sent in an unusually large number of telegrams to both the White House and Congress.[9][10] Less than a week after the Saturday Night Massacre, an Oliver Quayle poll for NBC News showed that for the first time, a plurality of U.S. citizens now supported impeachment of Nixon, with 44% in favor, 43% opposed, and 13% undecided, with a sampling error of 2 to 3 percent.[11] In the days that followed, numerous resolutions of impeachment against the president were introduced in Congress.

ever been independent of the President?