I don't find the article's "deep state" narrative very convincing. The message I got from the article was, "there's a shadow government and it's using dirty tactics to subvert the normal operations of our elected representatives (including the POTUS)."
That view would be a lot more legitimate, IMO, if we had a functional government trying to carry on normal business for the benefit of the people. What's actually happening looks to me to be very different, and exceptionally so! An analogy that should ring a bell with many HN regulars would be the new technical manager with zero technical background who was hired because he's the CEO's nephew, who happens to be borderline mentally challenged but makes up for it with defiant corruption, extreme nepotism and flamboyant temper tantrums.
If you're (e.g.) a developer and your new manager is objectively incompetent and deeply disturbed, if he jeopardized important projects and the company's bottom line (that you depend on for a living), no one would be surprised if you voiced your concerns to the manager's superior. In this analogy, the manager's only superior is the public.
> That view would be a lot more legitimate, IMO, if we had a functional government trying to carry on normal business for the benefit of the people... An analogy that should ring a bell with many HN regulars would be the new technical manager with zero technical background who was hired because he's the CEO's nephew, who happens to be borderline mentally challenged but makes up for it with defiant corruption, extreme nepotism and flamboyant temper tantrums.
A lot of hyperbole gets thrown around, but do you legitimately believe the US government is no longer "functional" and run by "borderline mentally challenged" people?
You don't have personally like the newcomers to the top levels of the US government, but you're deluded if you think they're not capable people (or good at playing a game) acting within a system that's been built for hundreds of years.
The US government has been increasingly dysfunctional for several years now. I'd like to remind you that Congress has actually shut down the government's operations on more than one occasion, tried to blackmail the Executive with a government default, has passed a record low number of laws and refused to review Obama's appointment for the vacant SC position. Congress, for practical purposes, went on strike to attempt to ensure that Obama would not be able to accomplish most of his goals - in effect punishing the US people for political purposes.
This isn't getting any better with the change of POTUS - now the Democrats are determined to stalemate the new Executive in any way possible. This isn't healthy, this is destructive, and it's certainly not functional. It's disgraceful!
You're wondering whom I'm calling "borderline mentally challenged?" That would be Donald Trump, about whom many professional psychologists have voiced concerns of mental competency. He hasn't yet given the US public any indication that he's even as smart as George W. Bush or more knowledgeable of world politics than the average 5th grader.
The rest of the team is a mixed bag with regard to competence. Certainly Nancy DeVos has shown no indication of capability for her position, and the rest of the team has definitely been selected for ideological proximity to D. Trump rather than capability. Disturbingly, the EPA appointee is a declared enemy of the EPA, the energy guy is a global warming denier, and the national security guy is someone who has publicly announced his intention to overthrow the state. His pick for AG was previously disqualified for being an outspoken racist. Similar (dis)qualifications apply to numerous other of his picks.
I'd say, au contraire, that a considerable amount of delusion is required to believe that a team this poorly matched to their jobs will be effective improvers of the nation's status.
> Congress, for practical purposes, went on strike to attempt to ensure that Obama would not be able to accomplish most of his goals - in effect punishing the US people for political purposes.
Or, if acting in good faith, disagreed that his goals would be good for US people. More laws and actions do not mean the people are better off.
> You're wondering whom I'm calling "borderline mentally challenged?" That would be Donald Trump
Thank you for your response, but we're going to just fundamentally disagree and while I'm fine with "in my opinion...", the level of hyperbole involved is enough to make me sit this one out. A "borderline mentally challenged" person would not be able to navigate his way to the position of POTUS.
I'm happy to let opinions stand as such, but in your support of Trump's mental competence you're denying reality.
Sarah Palin was McCain's pick for VP, and thus well on her way to "having navigated her way to the position of POTUS." And if you feel that the candidate who couldn't name a single newspaper she read was mentally competent to be POTUS then that's an opinion of yours I won't be able to share.
If you think that the current administration is "business as usual" just with different ideas I think it is you who are delusional, or you are not paying attention. The fact that we currently have senators trying to smooth over crumbling relations with foreign allies weeks into the administration should be evidence enough that this administration is something completely different.
The government is only functional at this point because of the "deep state" and the fact that bureaucrats are running most actual functions, even if their superiors have been replaced.
As for mentally challenged, there has been a lot of speculation that his erratic behavior is an indicator of mental illness, but I would agree we need to be careful about simply accepting these diagnoses just because of our personal biases but I think the reason there is so much speculation is because his behavior encourages it.
You might not be concerned about this because you dislike the current president, but if the so-called "deep state" really is trying to bend elected officials into their will, that's an attack on democracy and it shouldn't matter who's currently sitting in the Oval Office.
> An analogy that should ring a bell with many HN regulars would be the new technical manager with zero technical background who was hired because he's the CEO's nephew, who happens to be borderline mentally challenged but makes up for it with defiant corruption, extreme nepotism and flamboyant temper tantrums.
That view would be a lot more legitimate, IMO, if we had a functional government trying to carry on normal business for the benefit of the people. What's actually happening looks to me to be very different, and exceptionally so! An analogy that should ring a bell with many HN regulars would be the new technical manager with zero technical background who was hired because he's the CEO's nephew, who happens to be borderline mentally challenged but makes up for it with defiant corruption, extreme nepotism and flamboyant temper tantrums.
If you're (e.g.) a developer and your new manager is objectively incompetent and deeply disturbed, if he jeopardized important projects and the company's bottom line (that you depend on for a living), no one would be surprised if you voiced your concerns to the manager's superior. In this analogy, the manager's only superior is the public.