Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 11K
  • Views: 318K
  • Politics 
Its not that he's a womanizer.
Its not that he's a drunk.
Its not that he comes across as a dick.

Its that he is grossly unqualified to hold that job. Largest group he's led is a platoon? No high-level managerial experience in the military or industry. The level of incompetence is staggering.
 
The bureaucr
p5mmr9 said:


Yes - maybe the bureaucracy can "basically run" itself - however the Secretary of Defense truly matters. It isn't a meaningless bureaucratic position with no real responsibility. I suggest all listen to that Woodward anecdote.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. A couple of things struck me:

1. The call Austin made was important enough for it to be made by the Commander in Chief to Putin. It's says a lot that Biden didn't make that call and it was left to the Sec of Defense to handle this issue involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

2. The information was brought to Austin and he made the call to his Russian counterpart. Ok, Pete could have made the same call. No one doubts his communication skills and intelligence.

3. Trump would have called Putin directly on this issue.

4. Woodward is a notorious swamp creature so naturally he's going to fawn over Austin.

5. Glad this issue didn't come up when Austin went missing in action for 2 to 3 weeks.
 
Does the Trump Economic Team have a plan? Or even a concept of a plan?

Krugman: We have no idea:

"... That’s not because the Trump team is keeping its plans closely held, nor is it because there are major factional fights. All the evidence suggests, instead, that Trump’s economic team still doesn’t have any plans, or even concepts of plans. All it has are some half-formulated thoughts about how to cater to Trump’s prejudices without doing massive economic damage.

Consider this report from Bloomberg:

Members of President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming economic team are discussing slowly ramping up tariffs month by month, a gradual approach aimed at boosting negotiating leverage while helping avoid a spike in inflation, according to people familiar with the matter.

One idea involves a schedule of graduated tariffs increasing by about 2% to 5% a month, and would rely on executive authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the people said.

The proposal is in its early stages and has not yet been presented to Trump, the people said — a sign that a monthly stepped approach is early in the deliberation process.
Click to expand...
If you spend even a minute thinking about this proposal, you realize that it makes no sense. Phasing in, say, 25 percent tariffs over around 8 months would do almost nothing to mitigate their inflationary impact. Prices would almost surely shoot up as soon as the plan was announced! It would, in addition, induce a mad stampede to get imports in before the full tariffs go into effect — a sort of supply-chain version of the Oklahoma land rush, pictured at the top of this post.

So what’s going on here? I don’t think it’s sheer stupidity. What’s happening instead is that Trump’s economic “advisers” realize that tariffs would increase the cost of living, but don’t dare say that clearly when their boss is still posting stuff like this:

es%2F23877261-3f18-48fe-a77a-acc4fe0703c3_1212x834.jpg

So Trump’s economic “advisers” are thrashing around in an effort to cater to Trump’s tariff obsession while somehow delaying or finessing the consequences. I use scare quotes around “advisers” because there’s no reason to believe that Trump will pay attention to advice that contradicts his prejudices. ..."

paulkrugman.substack.com

Trump's Team of Economic Yes-Men

Or, why he still has no plan
paulkrugman.substack.com paulkrugman.substack.com
 
When Hegseth was asked how many push-ups he could do, he said he did 5 sets of 47 this morning. I thought that was a kind of an odd interval, but it only now occurred to me that he does 47 pushups because Trump will be the 47th President. Should’ve been obvious.
 
(Continued)

"...Stephen Miran, whom Trump has tapped to lead the Council of Economic Advisers, is arguably a more interesting case. Back in November he wrote “A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System,” which might qualify as a manifesto if it were intelligible. My sense, however, is that reporters like the Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip writing about the document have struggled to make sense of what Miran is saying.

I, however, don’t find Miran puzzling at all, thanks to my long experience as (among other things) an economics professor at MIT, Princeton and CUNY. You see, I recognize the genre. Most years, at least one student tries to BS his way through the term paper requirement by producing something with a bunch of learned-sounding references and some gratuitous equations, hoping that you won’t notice the absence of any coherent argument.

And when I say lack of coherence I don’t mean that I disagree; I mean that the document simply doesn’t hang together. Part 3 makes the case for tariffs by arguing that they won’t be inflationary because they’ll lead to a stronger dollar, reducing import prices. Part 4 then calls for an all-out effort to weaken the dollar, using emergency powers if necessary.

Oh, and Miran’s plan for weakening the dollar involves pressuring foreign governments to stop accumulating dollar reserves — in effect, diminishing the role of the dollar as a reserve currency. (That wouldn’t work, but never mind.) Let’s hope nobody tells Trump, who has threatened to impose punitive tariffs on any country that dares move away from the dollar.

OK, I’m probably spending too much time on Miran, who is unlikely to have real policy influence. But then who will?

Which brings me back to my starting point: the incoming administration doesn’t seem to have any economic plan. But the ultimate reason for that absence is fear: everyone is afraid to say anything that might be taken as an implicit contradiction or criticism of Trump’s rantings. ..."
 
nycfan said:
Does the Trump Economic Team have a plan? Or even a concept of a plan?

Krugman: We have no idea:

"... That’s not because the Trump team is keeping its plans closely held, nor is it because there are major factional fights. All the evidence suggests, instead, that Trump’s economic team still doesn’t have any plans, or even concepts of plans. All it has are some half-formulated thoughts about how to cater to Trump’s prejudices without doing massive economic damage.

Consider this report from Bloomberg:


If you spend even a minute thinking about this proposal, you realize that it makes no sense. Phasing in, say, 25 percent tariffs over around 8 months would do almost nothing to mitigate their inflationary impact. Prices would almost surely shoot up as soon as the plan was announced! It would, in addition, induce a mad stampede to get imports in before the full tariffs go into effect — a sort of supply-chain version of the Oklahoma land rush, pictured at the top of this post.

So what’s going on here? I don’t think it’s sheer stupidity. What’s happening instead is that Trump’s economic “advisers” realize that tariffs would increase the cost of living, but don’t dare say that clearly when their boss is still posting stuff like this:

es%2F23877261-3f18-48fe-a77a-acc4fe0703c3_1212x834.jpg

So Trump’s economic “advisers” are thrashing around in an effort to cater to Trump’s tariff obsession while somehow delaying or finessing the consequences. I use scare quotes around “advisers” because there’s no reason to believe that Trump will pay attention to advice that contradicts his prejudices. ..."

paulkrugman.substack.com

Trump's Team of Economic Yes-Men

Or, why he still has no plan
paulkrugman.substack.com paulkrugman.substack.com
Click to expand...
There's no plan. There's never been a plan. Or, to put it a different way, the lack of a plan is the plan. As Elon said in his unfiltered way, MAGA won't get where it wants to go without a lot of pain in the short term.
 
CRHeel94 said:
Its not that he's a womanizer.
Its not that he's a drunk.
Its not that he comes across as a dick.

It’s that he is grossly unqualified to hold that job. Largest group he's led is a platoon? No high-level managerial experience in the military or industry. The level of incompetence is staggering.
Click to expand...
Also the fact that he thinks he’s qualified is itself, disqualifying.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Also the fact that he thinks he’s qualified is itself, disqualifying.
Click to expand...
To me, it's that he came to public prominence as a commentator on a right wing television network. Can you imagine what Ramrouser and Callatoroy would be saying if Biden had nominated Malcolm Nance as SecDef? And Nance has immensely more "dust on his boots" than Hegseth does.
 
FTR, Kevin Clinesmith (I assume that is Bondi’s reference) was an FBI attorney, not a prosecutor, and he was prosecuted and convicted by the DOJ for altering an email in the process of preparing a surveillance application for Carter Page.
 
Always worth tracking these things to see what people say, but Bondi and Rubio are shoe-ins. I'm not a fan of either one, but they're both qualified and they haven't been credibly accused of sexual abuse or alcohol problems (to my knowledge anyway). We now just have to hope they find the spine to speak the truth to Trump when he demands they do the unconscionable, which he absolutely, 100% will do.
 
nycfan said:

Tulsi Gabbard’s Charm Offensive Draws Skepticism From Republican Senators​

In private meetings, Trump’s choice to become spy chief has mixed up details about a key surveillance law​



“… Those concerns have largely remained private, and GOP lawmakers are expected to publicly support her despite their misgivings. But further missteps could jeopardize her nomination as Trump prepares to take office.

…
In her meeting with Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.), Gabbard couldn’t clearly articulate what the role of director of national intelligence entails, two Senate Republican aides and a Trump transition official said. When she met with Sen. Mike Rounds (R., S.D.), Gabbard seemed confused about a key U.S. national-security surveillance power, a top legislative priority for nearly every member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, conflating it with other issues, the aides said.

Senators are under pressure from Trump and his allies to vote in favor of his nominees.

After a Tuesday confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to run the Pentagon, Elon Musk, the billionaire adviser to the president-elect, signaled his support for launching primary challenges against Republican senators who oppose the nomination. …”

Click to expand...

So, don't do your job and question the appointment of my yes men, just let me have my way or I'll get rid of you.

What leadership.
 
lawtig02 said:
To me, it's that he came to public prominence as a commentator on a right wing television network. Can you imagine what Ramrouser and Callatoroy would be saying if Biden had nominated Malcolm Nance as SecDef? And Nance has immensely more "dust on his boots" than Hegseth does.
Click to expand...
Nance is a certified nut job. Is he even allowed to go on TV anymore? Haven’t seen him in a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top