Octopus Overlords

malchior wrote:Also rumors are spreading we will summarily pull out of Afghanistan as well. Without a plan. This is pure insanity.

Well, like the Kurds in Syria it's not like the Afghans are voting for him in 2020. Also I don't think there are any plans for a Trump Tower Kabul.

And really, he just doesn't give a shit about anything that happens outside the US or even outside his golf course. Really sucks to be led by a man governed by the whims of the moment.

Heh. I was just reading an Al Jazeera column that predicted more resignations in the coming days, weeks, and months. I believe they painted a target on Pompeo's back, too.

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:17 pm Heh. I was just reading an Al Jazeera column that predicted more resignations in the coming days, weeks, and months. I believe they painted a target on Pompeo's back, too.

Pompeo apparently also strongly disagreed with the non-policy policy on Syria. It'll be a question about whether he'll be pushed or leave on his own probably. Either way our Allies have to be in a near panic. And they should be. Our country is likely not going to be safe much less our allies.

Glad to see at least WaPo has corrected the misleading headline that Mattis was fired. In this context, Mattis being fired versus resigning in protest amounts to a world of difference.

And the stature of the united states in the world shrinks a little more.

I'm going to put Marco Rubio in the "gravely concerned" category.

Mattis' letter makes it clear (beneath a very thin veneer of polite professionalism) that he is not "retiring" but resigning in protest.

The only person pretending he's "retiring" is Drumpf. I'm fairly sure the resignation letter says resign in it somewhere, or maybe step down.

I wish headlines would stop using "retire". The letter has been leaked. It's not a retirement letter. It's obviously not a retirement letter.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:46 pm I'm going to put Marco Rubio in the "gravely concerned" category.

<twitter snip>

So, is that a very mild impeachment threat?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:34 pm The only person pretending he's "retiring" is Drumpf. I'm fairly sure the resignation letter says resign in it somewhere, or maybe step down.

I wish headlines would stop using "retire". The letter has been leaked. It's not a retirement letter. It's obviously not a retirement letter.

yep: "Because you have the right to have a SECDEF. whose views are better aligned with yours on these. and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position."

One less vote in the cabinet to remove Trump when the time comes.

Here's the program so you can keep track of the players.

Trump names Patrick Shanahan acting defence secretary

Deputy Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan has been appointed acting Pentagon chief, President Donald Trump has announced.

The move follows the resignation of James Mattis, who hinted at policy differences with Mr Trump when he stepped down on Friday.

General Mattis, 68, said the president had the right to appoint someone "whose views are better aligned with yours".

Mr Shanahan will take over on 1 January, an earlier date than expected.

Gen Mattis had been expected to leave the job in February, but on Sunday it was reported that the president had been considering removing him early.

"Patrick has a long list of accomplishments," Mr Trump tweeted when announcing his decision. "He will be great!"

Mr Shanahan is a former executive at the aerospace giant Boeing and joined the Trump administration last year.

I wonder if he's acting until confirmed by the senate (does he need to be confirmed again after being confirmed for his prior position?) or until Trump can find someone suitably horrible to take over the position on a more permanent basis.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:43 pmor until Trump can find someone suitably horrible to take over the position on a more permanent basis.

SecDef Bolton

:shudder:

$iljanus wrote:

malchior wrote:Also rumors are spreading we will summarily pull out of Afghanistan as well. Without a plan. This is pure insanity.

Really sucks to be led by a man governed by Russia/Putin.

FTFY. Who has a lot to gain by our pullout? Pretty obvious it’s definitely in Russia’s interest that we do so. We could chalk it up to Trump’s typical wildcard! bullshit but I suspect these ill-advised, sudden decisions (that make even Republicans cringe) have deeper roots than just Trump’s monkey-brained whims.

I wonder if Mattis would be up for running against Trump in 2020. I think he would beat him handily.

From the Washington Post:

Trump decided hastily to remove Mattis in reaction to negative news coverage, according to senior administration officials, one of whom said the president was eager to retaliate against Mattis and show up the widely respected former general. Another official said Trump and other advisers suspected Mattis of being part of a campaign to stoke negative coverage about the president.

After canceling his Christmas trip to Florida in view of the government shutdown, Trump was marooned this weekend at the White House watching hours of cable television news shows. Advisers said he stewed over commentary hailing Mattis as heroic — a human guardrail against the president’s impulses.

Trump was so angry with Mattis that on Sunday morning he directed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to inform the defense secretary that he was being pulled from office two months early, according to a senior administration official.

Fucking petty man child. Classless fuckwad. Kindergarteners have better manners than this piece of shit.

notice that Trump had someone else inform Mattis. Trump is such a coward and really has been his entire life.

From all I've ever heard, Marines from privates to generals positively revered Mattis when he was in the service.

I wonder if Trump just lost the USMC.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:20 pm From all I've ever heard, Marines from privates to generals positively revered Mattis when he was in the service.

I wonder if Trump just lost the USMC.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:20 pm From all I've ever heard, Marines from privates to generals positively revered Mattis when he was in the service.

I wonder if Trump just lost the USMC.

He lost my nephew (USMC) and his wife (USN)...not that they were big fans before, but the way he treated Mattis was the last straw for them. Nephew's post said "Trump is great on the economy and making our enemies respect us, but..."

Don't get me going. He's young, but he's also smart enough to know better. Sometimes he posts stuff just to agree with his friends and tweak his libtard relatives.

Anyway, I do believe Trump is losing his more lukewarm supporters. One hopes that his favorability rating will reflect that. I'll feel better about Americans if it falls below 35%.

Jaddison wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:33 pm I wonder if Mattis would be up for running against Trump in 2020. I think he would beat him handily.

I imagine Mattis did a decent job as Secretary of Defense and am inclined to believe the reports that he kept check on some of Trumps worst impulses and I am likewise concerned about his departure for all the reasons already listed. I also believe, however, that Mattis was/is a case of the "best of the worst" when looked at in a broader context. Obama felt the need to relieve him of his command; could have just been a difference of opinion on policy as reported but still, that is no small thing. Mattis has never addressed the accusation that he refused to deploy a rescue mission or render aid to a Green Beret unit in Afghanistan, command decisions are tough and I don't want to play armchair quarterback but the optics aren't good based on reports. Mattis was a board member of Theranos. That doesn't necessarily make him complicit in the unethical and illegal behavior that was occurring but again he is pretty close to the stench.

Ask him if he'd rather have the respect of the US's enemies or its allies.

I don't remember details but Mattis (maddog) was not a great pick, except in this administration a "not great" pick is amazing compared to most of the "god awful" picks.

I wonder if we'll have Acting Treasury Secretary Mulvaney after this weekend's shenanigans. How did they think calling a meeting of the big banks over the weekend to talk about liquidity and also hint they were talking about firing the Fed President was going to go? This is government by neurosis, driven by a narcissistic need to fix everything, and they are practically aiming to kick off a financial crisis without a single intelligent person to manage it.

Edit: Fun note but can't find the story about it right now but Trump was apparently complaining that Powell was turning him into a 'Hoover'. Hilarious that he'd understand that Hoover was related to the Depression without making the connection to the fact that he also was the last President who played with tariffs and lost bigly. Fucking moron.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:19 am Edit: Fun note but can't find the story about it right now but Trump was apparently complaining that Powell was turning him into a 'Hoover'. Hilarious that he'd understand that Hoover was related to the Depression without making the connection to the fact that he also was the last President who played with tariffs and lost bigly. Fucking moron.

Axios

If Mattis was fired for this :

"In another post, Ricks says Mattis was fired because:

Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way -- not because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?" "

Then he would make a great President. Mattis was definitely not the "best of the worst" as a choice for SecDef. He cares about his people and does not let his ego get in the way of leading. The stories of his leadership are many and he is one smart guy who was and is always reading.

"In an email that went viral in 2013, U.S. Marine General James Mattis (now the U.S. Secretary of Defense) candidly wrote about the value of this approach near the beginning of the Iraq War. Advising a colleague, he wrote:

Thanks to my reading, I have never been caught flat-footed by any situation, never at a loss for how any problem has been addressed (successfully or unsuccessfully) before. It doesn’t give me all the answers, but it lights what is often a dark path ahead."

We could use a person like Mattis leading the country much more than anyone I see as a potential opponent to Trump or Seaman Recruit Bonespurs himself

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:19 am I wonder if we'll have Acting Treasury Secretary Mulvaney after this weekend's shenanigans. How did they think calling a meeting of the big banks over the weekend to talk about liquidity and also hint they were talking about firing the Fed President was going to go? This is government by neurosis, driven by a narcissistic need to fix everything, and they are practically aiming to kick off a financial crisis without a single intelligent person to manage it.

Edit: Fun note but can't find the story about it right now but Trump was apparently complaining that Powell was turning him into a 'Hoover'. Hilarious that he'd understand that Hoover was related to the Depression without making the connection to the fact that he also was the last President who played with tariffs and lost bigly. Fucking moron.

We all thought the market would tank and the economy would crater as soon as Trump took office. But it takes a couple of years for a new administration to have an effect, and here we are. It looks like the juice from the tax giveaway is already running out. A couple of months ago fewer than 20% of economists saw a recession in 2019. Now, 50% of CFOs surveyed expect one by the second half of the year. (Granted, CFOs are not economists, but I would argue that the former are more in touch with economic reality, and their opinions have practical implications.) This is all Trump-inflicted, and the more he thrashes around blaming everybody else, the worse it's going to get.

Let's see...no chief of staff; an acting attorney general hired to shield Trump from the law; an acting SecDef with flimsy credentials; impulsive military retreats in Syria and Afghanistan; government shutdown over a temper tantrum; attacks on the Fed; 17 active investigations into Trump's various criminal enterprises; uncertainty over tariffs; record budget deficits...did I miss anything?

Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:11 pm did I miss anything?

# of days on the golf course since taking office. A month-old article I found has the tally at 167.

Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:11 pmA couple of months ago fewer than 20% of economists saw a recession in 2019. Now, 50% of CFOs surveyed expect one by the second half of the year. (Granted, CFOs are not economists, but I would argue that the former are more in touch with economic reality, and their opinions have practical implications.) This is all Trump-inflicted, and the more he thrashes around blaming everybody else, the worse it's going to get.

I have two data points I find relevant to me (anecdotes and all):
1) This is the first year in my adult life where my net worth didn't go up (actually my last check of the year *should* push me into the black for the year). I've been tracking it since 1994. No year was worse for me by far (even 2008) and I'm concerned about tax time still ahead.

2) At work, around August I told my team to make sure they got onto long-term projects. We're in high end consulting. I was starting to see the pipeline of work slow down. Last year was the best year we've ever had. This year was on pace to beat it until about June. As of the end of the month we've basically stopped signing work at all. That tells me the clients are battening the hatches. I always find that consulting is a leading indicator and think we are in for a rough 2nd half of 2019. I have an opportunity to get on a project that ends in June with local only travel or one that goes the whole year but I'll have to do India/Europe quite a bit. I am taking door two. I am also going to pass on a jump to a much, much more prestigious firm. I don't want to be last in the door now.

Looks like the Turmoil thread will be getting some more traffic.

The local economy is overheated. There aren't enough good employees to go around, there are too many people working who shouldn't be, there's too much traffic, everything's always too crowded, housing is in short supply, etc. A short, garden-variety recession would help rebalance all of that, with the bonus of tanking Trump's approval ratings going into campaign season. 'Course, if it's much worse than that, the government quiver is out of arrows to fight it, and we're all hosed.

Right now various indicators are mixed and confusing. I do know this much: recessions are driven by mass psychology -- when enough people/companies expect hard times ahead and start retrenching, we get hard times. And the general sentiment is turning grimmer by the day. But a New Years stock rally, a trade deal with China, a budget compromise that reopens the government, and some unexpectedly good cabinet appointments could still turn today's worries into a passing cloud.

BLS

And yet people are still concerned about the participation rate.

Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:33 pm I do know this much: recessions are driven by mass psychology -- when enough people/companies expect hard times ahead and start retrenching, we get hard times.

The aftermath of the 2000 recession taught me this. My hindsight was able to pick out the drumbeats that led to it. On the other hand, the best laugh I ever got from a textbook was the line, "Economics is a science."

A science of animal spirits. Like Necromancy.

Economics is pretty good at small scale answers and reading causes after the fact. As an accurate predictor of future events, it's rubbish. But the economy is pretty complex and impossible to test in a controlled space.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:39 pm And yet people are still concerned about the participation rate.

What's not apparent from the employment rate is the large number of crappy jobs being created. Low wages and skimpy benefits do not draw people in from the sidelines. For some reason there's a shortage of immigrants who normally do unskilled work. A lot of high-level jobs in the STEM fields are going unfilled, too, but there isn't a whole lot in between the good-paying, highly specialized career jobs and unskilled service jobs.

A boatload of crappy temp jobs in super-expensive urban areas do nothing for the uneducated rural poor five hundred miles away.

Get ready Mulvaney/D-list staffer to be the next Secretary of the Treasury!

"Reportedly" always makes me ask who's reporting it. The linked Slate article references a Bloomberg report that cites: "one person familiar with the president’s thinking said that Trump had weighed dismissing Mnuchin, while another said that Mnuchin’s tenure may depend in part on how much markets continue to drop." I don't give much credence to two unnamed persons "familiar with the president's thinking." They aren't even ID'd as WH sources.

I don't have a reference but I thought there was an earlier article that was less "I'm anonymously guessing" and more "he asked this in a meeting".

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:38 pm "Reportedly" always makes me ask who's reporting it. The linked Slate article references a Bloomberg report that cites: "one person familiar with the president’s thinking said that Trump had weighed dismissing Mnuchin, while another said that Mnuchin’s tenure may depend in part on how much markets continue to drop." I don't give much credence to two unnamed persons "familiar with the president's thinking." They aren't even ID'd as WH sources.

They are random leaks - people that basically overhear stuff that is above their pay grade because WH is a mess. Considering similar leaks in the past were spot-on, I would trust them more than any named WH spokesperson.