Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

still_one

(98,883 posts)

15. Of course it is awful, but this anonymous source is problemetic inself because it is coming close

Reply to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 09:46 PM

Sep 2018

to saying they are running a second government within our government.

What I don't understand is if this "resistence movement" exists, why don't they exercise the 25th ammendment?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is the anonymous NY Times editorial a way to distract from kavanaugh, and this was part of their [View all] still_one Sep 2018 OP

Of course. NT enough Sep 2018 #1

Oh, hell, no! The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #2

Of course it is awful, but this anonymous source is problemetic inself because it is coming close still_one Sep 2018 #15

The 25th Amendment is actually very difficult to activate. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #19

Agreed, but something doesn't feel right about this. NY Times better have this story correct, and still_one Sep 2018 #22

The NYT would never have published that piece if they didn't know who wrote it. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #23

That isn't what I am referring to. I am referring to the reliability of the person who wrote it. I still_one Sep 2018 #24

Here's the NYT's preface to the op-ed: The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #29

Thanks still_one Sep 2018 #30

The one corroborating thing is the release of Woodward's book, which helps validate it still_one Sep 2018 #26

Highlighting that the nominee is the chosen of a mad man is more of a focusing. Fred Sanders Sep 2018 #3

Yes! The confirmation should be off. He's nuts. nt babylonsister Sep 2018 #6

An obvious internal coup is happening....but we should carry on with the nomination because Fred Sanders Sep 2018 #7

no, it gives more reason to get more info on kavanaugh and not confirm him JI7 Sep 2018 #4

More reasons why this nomination needs to be yanked. C_U_L8R Sep 2018 #5

and who do you think will do that? Doubtful any republican will do that still_one Sep 2018 #8

We've got lots of good reasons... C_U_L8R Sep 2018 #13

First of all the implication in the editorial, and keep in my I haven't read it only going from what still_one Sep 2018 #18

The op-ed writer claims to be part of a group C_U_L8R Sep 2018 #21

That is effectively what the editorial is saying as I understand it. still_one Sep 2018 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author still_one Sep 2018 #9

+1000 bdamomma Sep 2018 #11

interesting bdamomma Sep 2018 #10

No it is a giant crack in the wall. Voltaire2 Sep 2018 #12

That occurred to me. It's not beyond the realm of possibility given what we know about DT. pnwmom Sep 2018 #14

The way to do this is exercise the 25th ammendement. Running a "resistence movement" against the still_one Sep 2018 #16

Deep Throat broke the law. That's why he didn't come forward for so long. n/t pnwmom Sep 2018 #17

Except deep throat reported illegal activities that were being committed. This source as I still_one Sep 2018 #20

The NYTimes doesn't need multiple sources -- they just need absolute proof pnwmom Sep 2018 #27

Which is easy enough as the person would be standing in front of them at some point. Fred Sanders Sep 2018 #31

I have been thinking the same way. Dawson Leery Sep 2018 #28