Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you want an example?We have clearly defined what it is, and who is in it. Some willingly and some against their will.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
But, like a typical useful idiot, you demand that everything be laid out on official government documents and produced in triplicate or it doesn't exist.
Neither is true; it has never been completely defined much less who is in it.
For example;
May I please have the roster for each?
This is the part where you obfuscate, get angry, call names and do everything except define and supply the names.
That someone can be in something “against their will” is crazy. Demanding that others “learn to think” while harboring such moronic stances is, well, absurd.
I guess because I don't believe that my postman has any more influence over government policy than I do.If this is was your source of information I don't see how you disagree with my assessment.I'm not sure about all that. This is where my understanding of it comes from.The deep state to me does exist, it's not nefarious though. Deep state is your postman. The guy in the EPA below a level that is congress approved. It's the people who have a job to do regardless of who's in the White House. This is feared by Trump. Because in an unconscious way he realizes that those people resist radical change. They provide a built in inertia to policy. It's the governmental equivalent to the "Are you sure" text when doing something critical on your computer.The deep state is more of an idea and less of a cabal.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
It is the idea that there are two governments at work. One for the people who want the government to work on improving social conditions. That one is mired in quicksand. It seemingly gets nothing accomplished. It works for the common people. And one that serves the military industrial complex and wall street class (deep state). It has no problem getting things through Congress.
There is plenty of money for war, not much for improving our social conditions.
Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State | BillMoyers.com
I think people, especially liberal types, can normally understand this idea of a deep state as described in the article. Trump's usage of it, and those that parrot it, make a mockery of it. It turns liberal thinkers off of the idea which gives the idea cover in plain site. It prevents people from discussing the idea rationally.
The last thing the ruling class wants is for people to talk about how they are looting society of its wealth.
"the center of gravity of the Deep State is firmly situated in and around the Beltway. The Deep State’s physical expansion and consolidation around the Beltway would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken. That the secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue"
Just one paragraph of many that support my conclusion. The only point I disagree with is the implication of the president into the system. He's only a member in the sense that he has the ability to make decisions without needing the approval of congress. He's got similar powers as the "deep state" in the sense that he doesn't necessarily need the other branches of power, but he's not a member of it. Since he is replaced frequently.
From where do you quote extreme or conventional?The deep state is more of an idea and less of a cabal.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
It is the idea that there are two governments at work. One for the people who want the government to work on improving social conditions. That one is mired in quicksand. It seemingly gets nothing accomplished. It works for the common people. And one that serves the military industrial complex and wall street class (deep state). It has no problem getting things through Congress.
There is plenty of money for war, not much for improving our social conditions.
Thats convenient….
It can be anyone, anywhere at any time and because “extreme” or “conventional” are in the eyes of the observer…any action outside of breathing can be called a “deep state” action…
The postman was probably a bad example. My point stands though.I guess because I don't believe that my postman has any more influence over government policy than I do.If this is was your source of information I don't see how you disagree with my assessment.I'm not sure about all that. This is where my understanding of it comes from.The deep state to me does exist, it's not nefarious though. Deep state is your postman. The guy in the EPA below a level that is congress approved. It's the people who have a job to do regardless of who's in the White House. This is feared by Trump. Because in an unconscious way he realizes that those people resist radical change. They provide a built in inertia to policy. It's the governmental equivalent to the "Are you sure" text when doing something critical on your computer.The deep state is more of an idea and less of a cabal.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
It is the idea that there are two governments at work. One for the people who want the government to work on improving social conditions. That one is mired in quicksand. It seemingly gets nothing accomplished. It works for the common people. And one that serves the military industrial complex and wall street class (deep state). It has no problem getting things through Congress.
There is plenty of money for war, not much for improving our social conditions.
Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State | BillMoyers.com
I think people, especially liberal types, can normally understand this idea of a deep state as described in the article. Trump's usage of it, and those that parrot it, make a mockery of it. It turns liberal thinkers off of the idea which gives the idea cover in plain site. It prevents people from discussing the idea rationally.
The last thing the ruling class wants is for people to talk about how they are looting society of its wealth.
"the center of gravity of the Deep State is firmly situated in and around the Beltway. The Deep State’s physical expansion and consolidation around the Beltway would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken. That the secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue"
Just one paragraph of many that support my conclusion. The only point I disagree with is the implication of the president into the system. He's only a member in the sense that he has the ability to make decisions without needing the approval of congress. He's got similar powers as the "deep state" in the sense that he doesn't necessarily need the other branches of power, but he's not a member of it. Since he is replaced frequently.
I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.The postman was probably a bad example. My point stands though.I guess because I don't believe that my postman has any more influence over government policy than I do.If this is was your source of information I don't see how you disagree with my assessment.I'm not sure about all that. This is where my understanding of it comes from.The deep state to me does exist, it's not nefarious though. Deep state is your postman. The guy in the EPA below a level that is congress approved. It's the people who have a job to do regardless of who's in the White House. This is feared by Trump. Because in an unconscious way he realizes that those people resist radical change. They provide a built in inertia to policy. It's the governmental equivalent to the "Are you sure" text when doing something critical on your computer.The deep state is more of an idea and less of a cabal.
It is the idea that there are two governments at work. One for the people who want the government to work on improving social conditions. That one is mired in quicksand. It seemingly gets nothing accomplished. It works for the common people. And one that serves the military industrial complex and wall street class (deep state). It has no problem getting things through Congress.
There is plenty of money for war, not much for improving our social conditions.
Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State | BillMoyers.com
I think people, especially liberal types, can normally understand this idea of a deep state as described in the article. Trump's usage of it, and those that parrot it, make a mockery of it. It turns liberal thinkers off of the idea which gives the idea cover in plain site. It prevents people from discussing the idea rationally.
The last thing the ruling class wants is for people to talk about how they are looting society of its wealth.
"the center of gravity of the Deep State is firmly situated in and around the Beltway. The Deep State’s physical expansion and consolidation around the Beltway would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken. That the secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue"
Just one paragraph of many that support my conclusion. The only point I disagree with is the implication of the president into the system. He's only a member in the sense that he has the ability to make decisions without needing the approval of congress. He's got similar powers as the "deep state" in the sense that he doesn't necessarily need the other branches of power, but he's not a member of it. Since he is replaced frequently.
Do you want an example?We have clearly defined what it is, and who is in it. Some willingly and some against their will.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
But, like a typical useful idiot, you demand that everything be laid out on official government documents and produced in triplicate or it doesn't exist.
Neither is true; it has never been completely defined much less who is in it.
For example;
May I please have the roster for each?
This is the part where you obfuscate, get angry, call names and do everything except define and supply the names.
That someone can be in something “against their will” is crazy. Demanding that others “learn to think” while harboring such moronic stances is, well, absurd.
You're a new member of Congress. Chuck Schumer calls you in and says "This is how we want you to vote on these bills.....and if you don't agree, this will be your final term in office and we'll get someone who will vote the way we want them too.....UNDERSTAND???"
From where do you quote extreme or conventional?The deep state is more of an idea and less of a cabal.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
It is the idea that there are two governments at work. One for the people who want the government to work on improving social conditions. That one is mired in quicksand. It seemingly gets nothing accomplished. It works for the common people. And one that serves the military industrial complex and wall street class (deep state). It has no problem getting things through Congress.
There is plenty of money for war, not much for improving our social conditions.
Thats convenient….
It can be anyone, anywhere at any time and because “extreme” or “conventional” are in the eyes of the observer…any action outside of breathing can be called a “deep state” action…
It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.The postman was probably a bad example. My point stands though.I guess because I don't believe that my postman has any more influence over government policy than I do.If this is was your source of information I don't see how you disagree with my assessment.I'm not sure about all that. This is where my understanding of it comes from.The deep state to me does exist, it's not nefarious though. Deep state is your postman. The guy in the EPA below a level that is congress approved. It's the people who have a job to do regardless of who's in the White House. This is feared by Trump. Because in an unconscious way he realizes that those people resist radical change. They provide a built in inertia to policy. It's the governmental equivalent to the "Are you sure" text when doing something critical on your computer.
Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State | BillMoyers.com
I think people, especially liberal types, can normally understand this idea of a deep state as described in the article. Trump's usage of it, and those that parrot it, make a mockery of it. It turns liberal thinkers off of the idea which gives the idea cover in plain site. It prevents people from discussing the idea rationally.
The last thing the ruling class wants is for people to talk about how they are looting society of its wealth.
"the center of gravity of the Deep State is firmly situated in and around the Beltway. The Deep State’s physical expansion and consolidation around the Beltway would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken. That the secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue"
Just one paragraph of many that support my conclusion. The only point I disagree with is the implication of the president into the system. He's only a member in the sense that he has the ability to make decisions without needing the approval of congress. He's got similar powers as the "deep state" in the sense that he doesn't necessarily need the other branches of power, but he's not a member of it. Since he is replaced frequently.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
Okay, I can see how, in a world of competing self interests, there are also those who would try to get in the way.It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.The postman was probably a bad example. My point stands though.I guess because I don't believe that my postman has any more influence over government policy than I do.If this is was your source of information I don't see how you disagree with my assessment.I'm not sure about all that. This is where my understanding of it comes from.
Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State | BillMoyers.com
I think people, especially liberal types, can normally understand this idea of a deep state as described in the article. Trump's usage of it, and those that parrot it, make a mockery of it. It turns liberal thinkers off of the idea which gives the idea cover in plain site. It prevents people from discussing the idea rationally.
The last thing the ruling class wants is for people to talk about how they are looting society of its wealth.
"the center of gravity of the Deep State is firmly situated in and around the Beltway. The Deep State’s physical expansion and consolidation around the Beltway would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken. That the secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue"
Just one paragraph of many that support my conclusion. The only point I disagree with is the implication of the president into the system. He's only a member in the sense that he has the ability to make decisions without needing the approval of congress. He's got similar powers as the "deep state" in the sense that he doesn't necessarily need the other branches of power, but he's not a member of it. Since he is replaced frequently.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
Do you not believe that we live in a plutocracy?Do you want an example?We have clearly defined what it is, and who is in it. Some willingly and some against their will.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
But, like a typical useful idiot, you demand that everything be laid out on official government documents and produced in triplicate or it doesn't exist.
Neither is true; it has never been completely defined much less who is in it.
For example;
May I please have the roster for each?
This is the part where you obfuscate, get angry, call names and do everything except define and supply the names.
That someone can be in something “against their will” is crazy. Demanding that others “learn to think” while harboring such moronic stances is, well, absurd.
You're a new member of Congress. Chuck Schumer calls you in and says "This is how we want you to vote on these bills.....and if you don't agree, this will be your final term in office and we'll get someone who will vote the way we want them too.....UNDERSTAND???"From where do you quote extreme or conventional?The deep state is more of an idea and less of a cabal.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
It is the idea that there are two governments at work. One for the people who want the government to work on improving social conditions. That one is mired in quicksand. It seemingly gets nothing accomplished. It works for the common people. And one that serves the military industrial complex and wall street class (deep state). It has no problem getting things through Congress.
There is plenty of money for war, not much for improving our social conditions.
Thats convenient….
It can be anyone, anywhere at any time and because “extreme” or “conventional” are in the eyes of the observer…any action outside of breathing can be called a “deep state” action…
They’re not quotes…they are adjectives. Reagan was called “extreme” and “right wing” at his time. Today he would be mundane and “left wing”
That's what I mean by a built in inertia.Okay, I can see how, in a world of competing self interests, there are also those who would try to get in the way.It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.The postman was probably a bad example. My point stands though.I guess because I don't believe that my postman has any more influence over government policy than I do.If this is was your source of information I don't see how you disagree with my assessment.
"the center of gravity of the Deep State is firmly situated in and around the Beltway. The Deep State’s physical expansion and consolidation around the Beltway would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken. That the secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue"
Just one paragraph of many that support my conclusion. The only point I disagree with is the implication of the president into the system. He's only a member in the sense that he has the ability to make decisions without needing the approval of congress. He's got similar powers as the "deep state" in the sense that he doesn't necessarily need the other branches of power, but he's not a member of it. Since he is replaced frequently.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
Reagan was a Democrat....like I was.....then the Democrats made a massive left turn and left behind half of their base.Do you want an example?We have clearly defined what it is, and who is in it. Some willingly and some against their will.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
But, like a typical useful idiot, you demand that everything be laid out on official government documents and produced in triplicate or it doesn't exist.
Neither is true; it has never been completely defined much less who is in it.
For example;
May I please have the roster for each?
This is the part where you obfuscate, get angry, call names and do everything except define and supply the names.
That someone can be in something “against their will” is crazy. Demanding that others “learn to think” while harboring such moronic stances is, well, absurd.
You're a new member of Congress. Chuck Schumer calls you in and says "This is how we want you to vote on these bills.....and if you don't agree, this will be your final term in office and we'll get someone who will vote the way we want them too.....UNDERSTAND???"From where do you quote extreme or conventional?The deep state is more of an idea and less of a cabal.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
It is the idea that there are two governments at work. One for the people who want the government to work on improving social conditions. That one is mired in quicksand. It seemingly gets nothing accomplished. It works for the common people. And one that serves the military industrial complex and wall street class (deep state). It has no problem getting things through Congress.
There is plenty of money for war, not much for improving our social conditions.
Thats convenient….
It can be anyone, anywhere at any time and because “extreme” or “conventional” are in the eyes of the observer…any action outside of breathing can be called a “deep state” action…
They’re not quotes…they are adjectives. Reagan was called “extreme” and “right wing” at his time. Today he would be mundane and “left wing”
Reagan was a Democrat....like I was.....then the Democrats made a massive left turn and left behind half of their base.Do you want an example?We have clearly defined what it is, and who is in it. Some willingly and some against their will.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
But, like a typical useful idiot, you demand that everything be laid out on official government documents and produced in triplicate or it doesn't exist.
Neither is true; it has never been completely defined much less who is in it.
For example;
May I please have the roster for each?
This is the part where you obfuscate, get angry, call names and do everything except define and supply the names.
That someone can be in something “against their will” is crazy. Demanding that others “learn to think” while harboring such moronic stances is, well, absurd.
You're a new member of Congress. Chuck Schumer calls you in and says "This is how we want you to vote on these bills.....and if you don't agree, this will be your final term in office and we'll get someone who will vote the way we want them too.....UNDERSTAND???"From where do you quote extreme or conventional?The deep state is more of an idea and less of a cabal.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
It is the idea that there are two governments at work. One for the people who want the government to work on improving social conditions. That one is mired in quicksand. It seemingly gets nothing accomplished. It works for the common people. And one that serves the military industrial complex and wall street class (deep state). It has no problem getting things through Congress.
There is plenty of money for war, not much for improving our social conditions.
Thats convenient….
It can be anyone, anywhere at any time and because “extreme” or “conventional” are in the eyes of the observer…any action outside of breathing can be called a “deep state” action…
They’re not quotes…they are adjectives. Reagan was called “extreme” and “right wing” at his time. Today he would be mundane and “left wing”
Do you not believe that we live in a plutocracy?Do you want an example?We have clearly defined what it is, and who is in it. Some willingly and some against their will.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
But, like a typical useful idiot, you demand that everything be laid out on official government documents and produced in triplicate or it doesn't exist.
Neither is true; it has never been completely defined much less who is in it.
For example;
May I please have the roster for each?
This is the part where you obfuscate, get angry, call names and do everything except define and supply the names.
That someone can be in something “against their will” is crazy. Demanding that others “learn to think” while harboring such moronic stances is, well, absurd.
You're a new member of Congress. Chuck Schumer calls you in and says "This is how we want you to vote on these bills.....and if you don't agree, this will be your final term in office and we'll get someone who will vote the way we want them too.....UNDERSTAND???"From where do you quote extreme or conventional?The deep state is more of an idea and less of a cabal.It is particularly humorous that the same folks whining that kids “are not being told to think” actually believe there is a “swamp” and a “deep state”…something they cannot define much less enumerate it’s member’s names.
It is the idea that there are two governments at work. One for the people who want the government to work on improving social conditions. That one is mired in quicksand. It seemingly gets nothing accomplished. It works for the common people. And one that serves the military industrial complex and wall street class (deep state). It has no problem getting things through Congress.
There is plenty of money for war, not much for improving our social conditions.
Thats convenient….
It can be anyone, anywhere at any time and because “extreme” or “conventional” are in the eyes of the observer…any action outside of breathing can be called a “deep state” action…
They’re not quotes…they are adjectives. Reagan was called “extreme” and “right wing” at his time. Today he would be mundane and “left wing”
But isn't that just partisan politics? My understanding of the deep state is that it transcends partisan politics. That is an aspect that makes it visible.That's what I mean by a built in inertia.Okay, I can see how, in a world of competing self interests, there are also those who would try to get in the way.It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.The postman was probably a bad example. My point stands though.I guess because I don't believe that my postman has any more influence over government policy than I do.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
Yep....the Deep State involves Democrats and Republicans.But isn't that just partisan politics? My understanding of the deep state is that it transcends partisan politics. That is an aspect that makes it visible.That's what I mean by a built in inertia.Okay, I can see how, in a world of competing self interests, there are also those who would try to get in the way.It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.The postman was probably a bad example. My point stands though.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
But isn't that just partisan politics? My understanding of the deep state is that it transcends partisan politics. That is an aspect that makes it visible.That's what I mean by a built in inertia.Okay, I can see how, in a world of competing self interests, there are also those who would try to get in the way.It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.The postman was probably a bad example. My point stands though.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
But isn't that just partisan politics? My understanding of the deep state is that it transcends partisan politics. That is an aspect that makes it visible.That's what I mean by a built in inertia.Okay, I can see how, in a world of competing self interests, there are also those who would try to get in the way.It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
Being non existent helps with the invisibility
Being non existent helps with the invisibilityBut isn't that just partisan politics? My understanding of the deep state is that it transcends partisan politics. That is an aspect that makes it visible.That's what I mean by a built in inertia.Okay, I can see how, in a world of competing self interests, there are also those who would try to get in the way.It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
Bullshit.What happened to us? Is anyone else wondering this?
Nope.
I think people understand the issues just fine. But "finding that solution to health care" just isn't that important when you have a crazy person in the White House with people like you making excuses for him every day.
On some level, the people on the right knew they screwed this up, but they simply can't admit it to themselves, much less the rest of us.
I'd love to really fix immigration or the health care problem. But when you have a sucking chest wound, you don't worry about a hang nail.
Trump is a sucking chest wound.
Partisan politics is ideologically driven, this isn't. I already gave the example of the state department. Both Democrats and Republicans leave. They don't leave because Trump is a Republican. They leave because of the way the people he put in place acted towards the institution they represent. In that sense they are apolitical. They have a job to do, Trump is hampering their ability to do that job, so they react. It's the reason for instance that you see conflicting messages coming out of the administration about Russia. On the one hand you have Trump tweeting about the fake Russia investigation. On the other hand you see statements coming out of the intelligence community. It's not like a lot of people think, Trump trying to sow confusion. It's the CIA, NSA, Homeland security protecting the integrity of their departments against Trump.But isn't that just partisan politics? My understanding of the deep state is that it transcends partisan politics. That is an aspect that makes it visible.That's what I mean by a built in inertia.Okay, I can see how, in a world of competing self interests, there are also those who would try to get in the way.It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.The postman was probably a bad example. My point stands though.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
