Perhaps Trump doesn't know that editorials are traditionally unsigned

[robkelk]

Art least in English-language newspapers, editorials are traditionally not signed. (French-language newspapers are different here.) So why all the complaints that this particular editorial in the New York Times was unsigned?

And so far that's the only complaint I've heard about the editorial. If all the people complaining about the editorial have is this particular trope, they need to work on their debating skills. I don't care who did or did not say it. I care whether it's true, and that won't change whoever said it.

[robkelk]

Digression: As It Happens - the in-depth interview show on CBC Radio - is leading with this story tonight, with the tagline "The call is coming from inside the House."

[classicdrogn]

(insert "I was phone" meme here)

[Rajvik]

In the US they are generally signed with at least a first name and town, as for why, two reasons. First, as was stated this evening on talk radio, if you are "resisting" a duly elected president from within his administration then what you should do is tender your resignation. He was elected properly, get over the damn loss or your disagreement with his policy and do your job, or get the duck out of the way and let someone who will do the damn job.
Now, rant over, the second reason is that the likelihood that this is the Times and Woodward running a bullshit line to hype Woodward's book is so highly likely it is insane.

[robkelk]

In the US they are generally signed with at least a first name and town, as for why, two reasons. First, as was stated this evening on talk radio, if you are "resisting" a duly elected president from within his administration then what you should do is tender your resignation.  He was elected properly,  get over the damn loss or your disagreement with his policy and do your job, or get the duck out of the way and let someone who will do the damn job.

Unless they were hired by the POTUS specifically, their job is to act in the interests of the United States of America, not the interests of the POTUS. It is not in the interests of teh United States of America to start a nationwide recession, to give one example.

Now, rant over, the second reason is that the likelihood that this is the Times and Woodward running a bullshit line to hype Woodward's book is so highly likely it is insane.

How so? Both the NY Times and Woodward have a great deal of actual evidence indicating they don't deal in bullshit.

[Matrix Dragon]

Jesus Christ. I'll write a longer post later after a lot of thought. But for now... You guys are in serious trouble.

[classicdrogn]

When any leader is fucking up enough that their staff are actively finding creative interpretations of their duties to try to compensate, the situation is serious trouble. When it's a head of state, even more so. When it's your own head of state...

All I can do is wish them the best, and hope that either the situation does actually improve, or they get the thumb out on the 25th Amendment. It's already going to be decades before we can repair the harm that blithering numpty has done to America's prestige and credibility among the other nations of the world.

[Labster]

He was elected properly, get over the damn loss or your disagreement with his policy and do your job, or get the duck out of the way and let someone who will do the damn job.

The editorial didn't make this argument.  He said that he agrees with Trump's policy, but that's Trump's actions prevent him from doing his job.  The biggest threat to Trump's policy goals is Trump himself, at least to the extent that Trump has consistent policy goals.

[robkelk]

This morning, radio reports are suggesting a possible author of the editorial, based on idiosyncratic language use in the text.

If they're right - and it's a huge "if" - then I owe Rajvik an apology. After all, the current POTUS did choose that particular person... as his running mate.

Yeah. I have to wonder whether the idiosyncratic language was chosen on purpose to throw people off the trail.

EDIT: Said reports are now also on the web.

[Matrix Dragon]

So, I'm pretty sure this is legit. The New York Times isn't stupid enough to publish something like this without being damn sure of it. And I can believe it. It fits with a lot of stories that have been leaking out of the White House before now, regarding general chaos, staff firings and resignations, and even the simple details like Trumps need to tear up any paperwork he's done with. I've been looking at some stuff on the topic today, and my initial reaction seems to be accurate. This is a Very Bad Thing.

Your government has a clear and established procedure for removing a sitting president, in the event the administration comes to the conclusion that he is incapable, unwilling or unfit for office. Taking those actions require the people taking them to show some integrity, and it is a personal career risk to them, but it is not a constitutional crisis. What these people are doing, acting against the instructions and decisions of their elected superior and subverting the bureaucracy for their own agenda, is a very serious crime and a legitimate threat to the nations democratic process. They're not failing to enact impeachment proceedings because of fear of a constitutional crisis. These people want Trump as President, because they believe, in their greed and corruption, they can control the country from behind the scenes. This editorial is an attempt at covering their asses once things fall apart. "See, we weren't part of the crimes! We were secretly the heroes! We're on your side."

Who's actually in charge of the United States right now?

[robkelk]

These people want Trump as President, because they believe, in their greed and corruption, they can control the country from behind the scenes. This editorial is an attempt at covering their asses once things fall apart. "See, we weren't part of the crimes! We were secretly the heroes! We're on your side."

If so - and I have no evidence whether it is or is not - then this would be political staffers covering their asses. Professional civil servants are responsible to the sovereign authority, not to the person who happens to have been elected most recently, and theoretically don't have an opinion on who should be elected.

Which again would mean that I owe Rajvik an apology.

Who's actually in charge of the United States right now?

I shan't explore conspiracy theories, or try following the money and determining who benefits from the current situation.

I'll just say that it's generally accepted that in the United States of America, sovereign authority is embodied by The People. I shan't attempt to define "The People"; that's a job for the United States Supreme Court.

[robkelk]

I'm still seeing a lot of messenger-shooting going on over this. I'm still not seeing any rebuttals of the content of the piece.

[Bob Schroeck]

Other than the "lies! all lies!" shouting, I don't think there will be. This is the third unrelated account (Omarosa and Woodward are the other two) which describe the White House staff as constantly scrambling to keep the President from doing a Big Stupid at any given moment.

[Rajvik]

I'm still seeing a lot of messenger-shooting going on over this. I'm still not seeing any rebuttals of the content of the piece.

From what I've heard, John Kelly has said Woodward's book, (which supposedly takes the same line,) is full of lies and half truths which is part of the reason why I suggested that the NYT and Woodward were trying to bullshit this into something. Add to that the Media Resource Center saying that the Times has a "history of over-inflating" their sources and "not fact checking deep enough". Then we can add on top of that the Kavenaugh confirmation hearings started the same day this came out, distraction much? I'm sorry but it smells a bit to much like Comey's speech 2 point oh.

[Dartz]

Given that the editorial was printed in the local Newspaper of record - which would be subject to Irish libel laws if there were any falsehoods therein - and nobody's bothered to launch such a suit.

That The Irish Times published it is indication that there is, at least, enough truth in their to go before some crusty old cunt in a wig and make an argument - and expect to reliably win that argument to boot.

Get out of the US-Russia bubble where everyone's pushing an agenda and you'll see that very little coverage is positive for Trump. He is universally thought of as a buffoon - as the Presidental equivelant of that shithead kid who's never been slapped by his mammy asnd thinks that the only way to win is if everyone else looses and doing so by negotiating with utmost bad faith. That's basically Trump's policy right there.

And it's already cost the US trade. It's already cost the US economy money. And it's not the nailmakers and heavy industry stuff - it's the fucking farmers that took the hit.

The EU and Japan signed a massive deal with each other - one which took years of give and take negotiation.

Rumour is, those dairy products Japan's happy to buy from the EU, were originally supposed to be Wisconsin dairy products. All the concessions Japan had been happy to make to the US as part of the Pacific agreement, we got them. You lost that. You lost that deal because your president wouldn't make it, he wouldn't give anything back to Japan. The EU meanwhiile agreed to reduce tariffs on Japanese cars. This is generally considered a win for both parties. Ireland especially has gotten somebody willing to buy up a lot of pork and cheese - and we get cheaper Toyotas and a Toyota is a great car let me tell you. Those Toyota people really know how to make good cars.

And even the deal he's 'forced' the EU to accept is an utterly bad deal for him. He 'forced' the EU to remove tarriffs on products the EU doesn't really need or want to import, in exchange for reducing tarriffs on things the EU does want to export. That doesn't sound like a good deal to me. It sounds like a fairly bad deal really. This is the guy who thinks the whole world is giving America bad deals and then this is the sort of good deal he makes.

It sounds like the sorta deal made by a man who's way of making a little money is to start out with a lot of money. Repeatedly.

It seems utterly ludicrous that anyone can think he's doing a 'good' job when really he's been utterly fucking cuk'd by just about every world leader he's met.

Now don't get me wrong - I get why people support him. I made 200 quid betting on him to win because I copped it. The government that promised change didn't especially change fuck all, while merrily droning the neighbours of every terrorist they met. It feels like life is getting worse for a lot of people through know fault of their own.

But Trumpanomics is basically the art of putting a gun to your own head and telling everyone they'll have to clean up the mess if you pull the trigger. The rest of the World just puts down newspaper.

[Rajvik]

Lets see, reasons for thinking he is doing a good job , (note I will have to find some links for this later

Over 4% GDP growth since his election, (not taking office, just that he was elected and promised to fix shit)

Lowest unemployment in all brackets (including specifically minorities) in over 50 years both nationally and in 14 individual states.

Depending on the company, most people re sieved a 500 to 1000 dollar bonus from their jobs last year

Individual tax rates are down meaning we either get more back or don't pay as much in on taxes.

Removed the individual mandate and is still trying to get congress to repeal Obamacare

North Korea isn't launching missiles or making threats anymore, and might even get rid of their nukes

Got rid of the Iran deal and the Paris Climate Accord which were neither wanted nor agreed to properly.

Gee Darts, he is fulfilling his promises, or at least actively trying while kicking the liberals in the nuts with their own tactics, (which is making them scream even more) what is there for a conservative not to love. (Note, I say conservative not republican, damn beltway bastards have gotten too used to the easy life of "the elite"

[robkelk]

I'm still seeing a lot of messenger-shooting going on over this. I'm still not seeing any rebuttals of the content of the piece.

From what I've heard, John Kelly has said Woodward's book, (which supposedly takes the same line,) is full of lies and half truths which is part of the reason why I suggested that the NYT and Woodward were trying to bullshit this into something.

By "John Kelly", do you mean Trump's White House Chief of Staff, who Ivanka thinks is the writer of the op-ed piece?

Add to that the Media Resource Center saying that the Times has a "history of over-inflating" their sources and "not fact checking deep enough".

I'd need to see that press release before I could comment on it. Anybody can set up a "Media Resource Center" - the first page of DuckDuckGo results shows Media Resource Centers at VMWare, CalPoly, UNC, the City of San Antonio, Ohio Institute of Allied Health, and American Transmission Company. How many of them are qualified to comment on politics?

Then we can add on top of that the Kavenaugh confirmation hearings started the same day this came out, distraction much?

It is a distraction from the Democrats' attempts to have the confirmation hearings postponed until after the elections, yes. This benefits the Republicans.

I'm sorry but it smells a bit to much like Comey's speech 2 point oh.

Setting aside the bruising it did to Trump's ego (which should not matter in politics), just what was so bad about Comey's speech?

And you still aren't discussing the content of the piece.

[Dartz]

>> Lets see, reasons for thinking he is doing a good job , (note I will have to find some links for this later

>> Over 4% GDP growth since his election, (not taking office, just that he was elected and promised to fix shit)

Most likely inertia. For one thing, the whole world economy is growing. For another, it takes years for policies to have an effect. The growth is basically the result of the previous administrations policies coming good. We have something of a similar situation here - the previous administration's measures laid the groundwork for the next. The next took credit for righting the ship.

The reality is that if you hit the ground hard enough, you'll bounce.

Although, as Apple's €13 billion has shown, with the heavily tech-related GPD we have - using GDP as a marker of economic performance is flawed at best.

>> Lowest unemployment in all brackets (including specifically minorities) in over 50 years both nationally and in 14 individual states.

We're in the same boat. Arguably, we're doing so well it's starting to look like 2006. Our economic policy is completely different. We're trading with everyone we can and then some. Buy our shit, we buy your shit. Look at our high quality food and cow parts, don't you want that? We want car parts cheap.

The whole EU is going like a rocket because we're not pissing off our trading partners, and furthermore, hoovering up the ones the US has pissed off.

(Also, as Robkelk pointed out below, Unemployment Stats are based on people looking for work who can't find work. People who aren't looking for work aren't included. This trick has been used to massage the figures for years here - and arguably still is. Unemployment is lower than at the peak of the economy in 2006 - but then again, out of a proportion of total working age people, people actually wanting work is lower)

>> Depending on the company, most people re sieved a 500 to 1000 dollar bonus from their jobs last year

Didn't get that. Company I work for had a shite year last year, but that was related to outside factors and a point of inflection in the market. We dealt. We're still alive.

>> Individual tax rates are down meaning we either get more back or don't pay as much in on taxes.

We have lower taxes than you. I'm in a zero tax band on my salary. But they're getting it in other ways, through VAT charges, through vehicle taxes, alcohol taxes, 'sin' taxes. Check your secondary charges, your 'stealth' taxes, or even the general price of goods. You're paying alright. Just somewhere else. Adding more money to the economy doesn't make people better off, it just increases prices.

We had this happen when the government had the great idea to match every 4 euro people put into a savings account with an extra euro. It worked great until every account matured at the same time and the resulting glut of money jerked prices up. So everyone felt richer for about five minutes. Tax cuts have the same effect - it's basic economics.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and basic tax cuts and more circulating money usually mean pain elsewhere.

>> Removed the individual mandate and is still trying to get congress to repeal Obamacare

i dunno. Go to a public hospital here and I can pay a maximum of 800 euro iin a calender year for treatment -no matter how many times I go or what they do. Or have health insurance and pay less that the US for insurance and private care. Or how much less state (Taxpayer) money goes into either system and it more or less works. But no matter what you do with healthcare in the States you're getting ripped off. You're spending it in your taxes, and out of your personal money.

The real problem we have here is chronic overmanagement - someone started reforming the system along the line's of the UK's NHS in the mid 2000's but sort of had to stop so the job was left half finished and limping along.

Lets try just about any other country in the EU, which pays far less than the US does for healthcare and invariably has a better system with better outcomes. Germany - which has public services that even the most hardcore blue-nosed democrat would call filthy communism is running at a budget surplus. We're running at close to a budget surplus.

Most of which have systems similar to either Obamacare, or Medicare or a combination of both.

>> North Korea isn't launching missiles or making threats anymore, and might even get rid of their nukes

They got what they wanted which was attention and food. And apparently, they're carrying on merrily with the program. What's also happening is that the local states are starting to go behind America's back through back channels to sort their shit out in private. Which reduces American influence on the politics of the area.

> Got rid of the Iran deal and the Paris Climate Accord which were neither wanted nor agreed to properly.

The rest of the world quite liked the Iran deal. It kept fuel prices down (Bad for Russian and Saudi Arabia, good for people.). It gave Iran a reason to talk to people and was all-round a good idea. Noticed fuel prices rising lately? That might be why. I doubt it's a coincidence I'm paying maybe 10-20% more at the pumps because Trump pulled out of that deal. Are you?

As for the Paris Climate Accord, the recent drought this summer has sort of shown what bollocks that is. It's already too late to have an effect on climate - we've gone too far and the whole fuckjing thing is gonna titsup anyway. I'm keeping me Mazda.

[robkelk]

Lets see, reasons for thinking he is doing a good job , (note I will have to find some links for this later

If you wouldn't mind, could you revise what you're looking for slightly? I'll list point by point.

Over 4% GDP growth since his election, (not taking office, just that he was elected and promised to fix shit)

Azerbaijan had a 15% GDP growth rate in 2006-2010. Belarus had a 8.53% growth rate in the same period. Uzbekistan had 6.9%. These countries are not what I would call economic powerhouses. Instead of percentages, can you give me dollar amounts per capita (i.e., how much more actual wealth was there on average per person in the country)?

Lowest unemployment in all brackets (including specifically minorities)  in over 50 years both nationally and in 14 individual states.

How does that correlate with the employment rates? Is unemployment going down because people are going on welfare, or is unemployment going down because people are finding work, or is unemployment going down because there are fewer people in the population? We need both sets of numbers for meaningful information.

Depending on the company, most people re sieved a 500 to 1000 dollar bonus from their jobs last year

That's not something that a government can take credit for, unless the businesses were nationalized. But, yes, I'd be interested in learning how much WalMart greeters, McDonalds fry-cooks, and employees in other comparable jobs received in bonuses.

Individual tax rates are down meaning we either get more back or don't pay as much in on taxes.

What services are the people of the USA not getting for those taxes you aren't paying? How much are the people of the USA paying private companies to receive those services? Is the increase in payments to private companies higher, lower, or the same as the decrease in payments to governments for the same service?

Removed the individual mandate and is still trying to get congress to repeal Obamacare

(I thought you were listing how he's doing a good job. Nice to see you've included one of his blunders on the list...) What medical services are the people of the USA not getting for that health care you aren't getting any more? How much are the people of the USA paying private companies to receive those medical services? Is the increase in payments to private companies higher, lower, or the same as the decrease in payments to governments for the same medical service?

North Korea isn't launching missiles or making threats anymore, and might even get rid of their nukes

The mountain above North Korea's nuclear testing site collapsed earlier this year; they're physically incapable of continuing that program. Trump had nothing to do with this.

Got rid of the Iran deal and the Paris Climate Accord which were neither wanted nor agreed to properly.

I dispute the phrase "neither wanted nor agreed to properly", please explain why the USA pursued and negotiated agreements that the USA did not want.

Gee Darts, he is fulfilling his promises, or at least actively trying while kicking the liberals in the nuts with their own tactics, (which is making them scream even more) what is there for a conservative not to love. (Note, I say conservative not republican, damn beltway bastards have gotten too used to the easy life of "the elite"

While you're looking things up, please show where the liberals employed the tactics that conservatives employ. Or vice-versa.

[Rajvik]

Rob, dartz, I am working up a post that will cover all of these points line by line. My research is turning up interesting tidbits on both side of the coin. As an example, I didn't know that the second quarter 2014 had a 5.1% growth rate. Granted that was preceded by a negative 1% and followed by 4.9% and 1.9% in the following quarters, but I honestly thought he never even got past 3% growth. Yearly averages never beat 3%, but I am willing to go by quarters.

The down side is that to keep from completely burning out this is going to take a bit, not even considering if I get distracted.

As to commenting or refuting the contents of the op-ed, until you know WHO wrote it, there is no way to refute it, so there is no point in commenting on it at all because you'll simply be wasting your time and breath.

[robkelk]

There are some statements in the op-ed of specific actions being taken. Did those actions actually take place?

We don't need to know who wrote the op-ed to be able to answer that.

[Dartz]

There is a reason it took a long time to find out who Deepthroat was.

[Labster]

I'm still seeing a lot of messenger-shooting going on over this. I'm still not seeing any rebuttals of the content of the piece.

From what I've heard, John Kelly has said Woodward's book, (which supposedly takes the same line,) is full of lies and half truths which is part of the reason why I suggested that the NYT and Woodward were trying to bullshit this into something. Add to that the Media Resource Center saying that the Times has a "history of over-inflating" their sources and "not fact checking deep enough". Then we can add on top of that the Kavenaugh confirmation hearings started the same day this came out, distraction much? I'm sorry but it smells a bit to much like Comey's speech 2 point oh.

Actually, it turns out that Woodward has said that the op-ed should not have been published, here's a link to a conservative source so you'll believe me.  I'm not really sure what to make to the thing, but this is certainly not a high-water mark in the history of the New York Times.

The reason we never found out who Deep Throat is until way later is that he never made a single on-the-record statement.  This new guy wrote a public document that basically confirmed that the Trump administration is an omnishambles, which everyone has known for at least a year.  And he sets himself up as the savior of the republic by ignoring the President.  Am not impressed. The only thing I really get out of this is that the White House chaos alert level has been raised to neon orange.

[Rajvik]

Labster, my reading of the article is that Woodward is saying that the Op-ed is too generic and doesn't have enough specifics. He is specifically quoted as saying that he wouldn't have printed it without more details and specifics of who, where and when.