One theory I’ve heard is that if he fires a bunch of people it’s harder to stick him with obstruction when he fires the people involved in the Russia investigation.
He’s in game show mode is all. Firing people improves ratings, in his head.
So what do you guys see as the endgame? Is Trump’s administration going to assume some stability if he succeeds in surrounding himself with nothing but spineless sycophants?
How much is the potential pool of replacements narrowing with every departure?
Or will he keep churning through staff because in his twisted mind that somehow suggests an effective leadership style?
Even if the Trump Administration achieves some stability with respect to personnel (possible, I suppose) when he is entirely surrounded by ass-kissers, it won’t be stable in any other respect because Trump will always be going off on new tangents, half of which are in direct contradiction to his old tangents.
And if we’re very, very lucky, none of those tangents will involve major military actions. Lord help us.
At least the other Gulf nations are nowhere near as close to developing nukes as Iran would be if the deal is scotched. There’d be time for the next President to unfuck that particular chicken.
One does sometimes wonder if he’s going to end up doing his own photocopying and such like.
He may think he’s still shooting a season of “The Apprentice”, and is looking to winnow the staff to the One True Loyal Assistant.
This is more or less my impression as well.
He’s “figured out how to be President” in the manner that he knows how to do any job; unfortunately, his only real job experience is “reality TV show ‘boss’”.
there could be a lot of politicians out of jobs in Nov. and some would be happy to work for him so they can stay in DC.
Yeah - there does seem to be a pretty large class of “upper management” political types, for whom no press seems too bad to foreclose future hiring. Just seems so wild, when someone can resign in disgrace, and be rewarded with a HIGHER PAYING position! Would be nice to be in that fraternity!
Whereas for most of us poor schmucks, if we get laid off due to no fault of our own, the opportunities are slim…
Two sources tell CBS News that Kelly may leave today.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand the White House needs an adult in the room. On the other, this particular adult is a lying racist piece of shit.
Hmmm. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump and Kelly have reached a "truce"and Kelly will stay on.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-and-john-kelly-reach-temporary-truce-1521209445
On the plus side, it would be cool if we flayed Kim Jong-Un.
If that’s the case, then I’m even more bullish on the firing of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. I’m not sure how fond Kelly was of everyone in Trump’s cabinet, but I suspect that this is where the general draws the line. He knows that it would be a political shit show afterward.
Something tells me Trump is partly doing all of this house cleaning as a smokescreen for firing Sessions, whom he’s wanted to shit can since last summer but couldn’t for practical reasons. Now that Mueller’s getting ever closer to his business dealings, he’s in brass knuckles mode. That means Sessions can’t be far behind, and that means ending the Mueller investigation with blunt force - something I’ve predicted would happen for a while - is finally going to happen. And Washington is going to erupt and descend into political chaos.
But As long as the economy is performing well and as long as people at least perceive their everyday lives not being affected by Trump’s circus, he probably has enough cover to get away with it for a while. However, when Trump’s incompetence finally starts affecting food prices, our retirement, and our ability to find work, the heat will be on again.
If this comes to bear, then this would essentially prove my theory: presidents don’t really get impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors – that’s what the civics books tell you, but that’s not the political reality. They get impeached based on the strength of the opposition and the mood of the country.
A “truce” that lasts how long - a few weeks? Wait until Trump attempts to fire Sessions.
Not necessarily, as they can always reach a weapons sharing agreement with Pakistan in the same way that NATO members share nuke capabilities currently. I’m not saying this absolutely would happen, but some reports (BBC, I believe) quoted sources in both countries as saying that this could happen if Iran were to get ever-closer to acquiring nuclear weapons.
Israel, of course, would factor heavily as well and regional non-proliferation might actually be one of their justifications for laying waste to anything even remotely suspected of having to do with nuclear production in Iran if the deal falls through.
As I have believed to be true with regard to our position relative to North Korea, similarly, I think the objection to Iran (which is even stronger, IMO) and the framework has to do with preserving our balance of power in the region (ours and Israel’s).
And again there are two ways to look at the problem of proliferation from our vantage point as a superpower rivaled by few: you can either accept that other countries will have nuclear weapons and decide to live with them in the hopes of reaching some degree of peace (perhaps even semi ‘normalization’ down the road), or you take the view that it is imperative that we maintain not just a strong military presence but an overwhelming military advantage - and by advantage, I mean an edge so decisive and with force so overwhelming that we can inflict fatal injury to a regime while sustaining little risk to our military and civilian population in the process of waging offensive war. Obama clearly adopted the first view; Trump’s team most likely embraces the second one. And given time we’re going to see violence on a spectacular scale, I’m afraid.
All the above points are good.
I think he’s also lessening likelihood of a cabinet insurrection via 25th Amendment. Also, maybe easier to shoot for President-for-life.
Didn’t the Crown Prince of SA just say in an interview (paraphrasing) " If Iran gets them, we’re getting them, too. We’d rather not but…"
This one seemed overdue if you knew McMaster’s history and general approach. I was pleasantly surprised that Trump would even consider McMaster. I assumed at the time he didn’t really know exactly the type of leader he was appointing. I am also surprised McMaster lasted as long as he did given Trump’s predispositions.
Young Captain McMaster violated orders, rightfully, as part of winning a Silver Star at the Battle of 73 Easting.
As a Major he published a book developed from his doctoral dissertation - "Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam."Taking the civilian leadership to task for their denigrating the role of senior uniformed leadership in advising military strategy, while making bad decisions, wasn’t new. He also took they senior military leadership to task for being derelict in their duty for not stridently expressing their grave concerns with untenable strategy. That was new.
McMaster had a reputation for being blunt and direct, even with superiors. He bucked the system and generally was seen as a pain in the ass to his superiors.
After appointment McMaster helped purge Bannon and Bannon allies from the White House. That sparked a fire McMaster movement last summer among the nationalist part of Trump’s base with him being labeled a deep state globalist.
McMaster was always a poor fit for Trump’s style. The most vocal and dedicated Trump supporters hated him. IMO this isn’t Presidential panic. This is Trump finally getting around to being Trump.
I really have to wonder what James Mattis thinks about this situation, and what he intends to do.