President Trump

[Zarathustra]

Sky: you're right to point out that the unemployment rate was dropping before Trump took office. However, given that we were at nearly full employment, the fact that he could squeeze out a few more percentage points is significant.

But the main point is how our expectations were wrong. This goes to a much larger point than partisan pissing contests, such as our expectation that automation is going to radically change our economy such that jobs will become obsolete. Obama's "magic wand" comment was along these lines. And if you'd read more than the posts I linked, as I'd suggested, you would have seen how the discussion began with several articles quoted (by WF) which said that the unemployment numbers reflected systemic changes in our economy that were to be the new normal. Well, that was wrong.

It's not that individual posters were wrong, but rather economists and our President was wrong, and convinced others who don't have the expertise to make a definitive call that they were right.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I was going through some of my old posts and noticed a discussion in the Barak Obama: Undistinguished Gentleman thread where at least three members here were expecting 7% unemployment to be the new normal (Hashi, Soulbiter, Wayfriend).

In this instance, I am glad that I was incorrect. We do not want 7% unemployment to be our new "normal".

[Skyweir]

Looks like its becoming a thing lol

Two Aussies who can't read. The Fallen was right.

Well when youre an illiterate bunch of thieves and murderers .. what do you expect lol

Im probably the only POME thats not a POME .. Scottish by birth Scottish by nature

[Skyweir]

Sky: you're right to point out that the unemployment rate was dropping before Trump took office. However, given that we were at nearly full employment, the fact that he could squeeze out a few more percentage points is significant.

But the main point is how our expectations were wrong. This goes to a much larger point than partisan pissing contests, such as our expectation that automation is going to radically change our economy such that jobs will become obsolete. Obama's "magic wand" comment was along these lines. And if you'd read more than the posts I linked, as I'd suggested, you would have seen how the discussion began with several articles quoted (by WF) which said that the unemployment numbers reflected systemic changes in our economy that were to be the new normal. Well, that was wrong.

It's not that individual posters were wrong, but rather economists and our President was wrong, and convinced others who don't have the expertise to make a definitive call that they were right.

ok I can see and appreciate your point... which I might add was very clearly and collaboratively written

[Cail]

Is the Trump team pulling off a diplomatic coup to end America's longest war?

Negotiations between the Taliban and US officials appear to have produced a breakthrough: A framework for an agreement that the Taliban will not host any foreign terrorist groups in exchange for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. In this framework agreement, the Taliban would also agree to a ceasefire and start talks directly with the Afghan government, according to the New York Times.

There could be much to celebrate in such an agreement, which may, perhaps, end America's longest war.

The Afghanistan negotiations have had none of the hoopla surrounding them that President Trump has injected into his discussions with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un about his nuclear program. So far, the North Korean negotiations have yielded nothing of substance, while the quiet discussions with the Taliban look like they might bring to a close the war that began after al Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan, attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

Zalmay Khalilzad, who served as US ambassador to Afghanistan for President George W. Bush and is now President Trump's special representative for Afghanistan, spearheaded the negotiations with the Taliban.

Khalilzad posted on Twitter on Saturday that he had just wound up six days of talks with the Taliban in Doha, the capital of Qatar, and that the "meetings here were more productive than they have been in the past. We made significant progress on vital issues."

Khalilzad also tweeted that he had briefed Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul on Sunday "on the progress we have made."

A signal of the seriousness with which the Taliban are approaching the talks with the Americans is that their negotiating team is headed by Mullah Baradar, a founder of the Taliban who was released from prison in Pakistan in September, seemingly for the purpose of moving peace talks forward.

This was a key development as the Taliban is splintered into a number of different groupings and factions, and only someone as senior in the Taliban as Mullah Baradar can speak for the whole movement.

Why now?

After 18 years of war, why have the United States and the Taliban finally come to the negotiating table in a meaningful way? The American academic I. William Zartman pointed out that warring parties usually only start seriously negotiating when they have come to recognition of a "mutually hurting stalemate."

A year ago the previous US commander in Afghanistan, General John "Mick" Nicholson, testified before the Senate Armed Service Committee that the Afghan War was indeed in a "stalemate."

For their part, the Taliban have fought for almost two decades and have yet to hold an Afghan town or city for anything more than a few days.

Add to this mix President Donald Trump, who has long been a skeptic about doing more in Afghanistan, and who tweeted in 2013, "Let's get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA."

The recognition of a mutually hurting stalemate between the Taliban and the United States, as well as Trump's skepticism about the American role in Afghanistan, have all combined to produce this moment in which some kind of peace deal may be possible.

Key questions

However, the devil will be in the details if a real peace is to be achieved with the Taliban.

First, will the Taliban agree to abide by the Afghan constitution that was ratified in 2004 and guarantees the rights of women to work and girls to be educated? When the Taliban was in power before being ousted shortly after the 9/11 attacks, they denied women and girls these fundamental rights.

Second, will the Taliban agree to a ceasefire with the Afghan forces that are doing most of the fighting against the Taliban? The Taliban position has long been they only want to negotiate with the Americans, but clearly the next step toward peace is to enter into discussions with the Afghan government.

Third, will the Taliban engage in normal politics in which they might be granted certain government ministries or provincial governorships? And will they promise not to interfere in the key Afghan presidential elections that are scheduled for July?

Fourth, will Western hostages that are held by the Taliban be released? These include US citizen Kevin King, 62, who is believed to be seriously ill, according to NBC News, and Australian citizen Timothy Weeks, 50, who were kidnapped in 2016 in Kabul near the American University in Afghanistan, where they were both teachers.

Fifth, will an American peace deal with the Taliban really end the war? Simply because American forces withdraw doesn't mean the war might not continue between the Taliban and the Afghan government. You only have to look at the rise of ISIS in Iraq during 2014, following a complete American withdrawal from the country three years earlier, to see how bad things could also get in Afghanistan absent American forces.

Sixth, what are the enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the Taliban abides by any agreement on barring foreign jihadist groups, or any other agreements they might enter into?

From CNN of all places. We need to get the hell out of the ME, and that'll be a major feather in Trump's cap if he can pull it off.

[Savor Dam]

In rebuke to Trump, Mitch McConnell unveils proposal urging troops stay in Syria, Afghanistan

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing an amendment to a Middle East policy bill that would acknowledge "al Qaeda, ISIS and their affiliates in Syria and Afghanistan continue to pose a serious threat to us here at home," a move seen as a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump's push to withdraw US troops from Syria.

"It would recognize the dangers of a precipitous withdrawal from either conflict and highlight the need for diplomatic engagement and political solutions to the underlying conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan," McConnell said Tuesday from the Senate floor, announcing the amendment to the bill, which is currently being debated.

Exact timing for the final vote on the bill, which at this point enjoys bipartisan support, has not yet been determined.
McConnell added that, "while it is tempting to retreat to the comfort and security of our own shores, there is still a great deal of work to be done.....we're not the world's policemen, but we are the leaders of the free world."

Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of troops from Syria on December 19, a move that was widely criticized by lawmakers from both parties.

Since that initial announcement, Trump earlier this month extended his original 30-day timeline to withdraw the troops to four months and told reporters, "I never said we're doing it quickly, but we're decimating ISIS." National security adviser John Bolton said earlier this month that the US will pull out of Syria only with assurances Turkey will not attack Kurdish allies there.

Col. Sean Ryan, spokesman for the US-led coalition, said in a statement January 11 that the coalition "has begun the process of our deliberate withdrawal from Syria," but did not provide additional details.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly 74 to 19 Monday to advance to open debate on a Middle East policy bill that includes fresh sanctions on Syria. The Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act wraps together five bills into one package. It includes new sanctions against Syria's central bank and individuals providing support for the Syrian government. It boosts military support for Israel and Jordan, two US allies that are Syria's neighbors. And makes it easier for states and localities to approve laws to combat the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier Tuesday that ISIS "has returned to its guerrilla warfare roots while continuing to plot attacks and direct its supporters worldwide."

But he also clearly stated that the group maintains a presence in Iraq and Syria.

"ISIS is intent on resurging and still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria," he said.

Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan told reporters at that same hearing that ISIS has lost "99.5% plus" of the territory it once held in Syria and Iraq, adding "within a couple of weeks it will be 100%."

"ISIS is no longer able to govern in Syria, ISIS no longer has freedom to mass forces, Syria is no longer a safe haven," Shanahan said.
Shanahan made the remarks as the US intelligence community released their Worldwide Threat Assessment that found "ISIS very likely will continue to pursue external attacks from Iraq and Syria against regional and Western adversaries, including the United States."

Sounds like the Majority Leader may not see the situation in the same light expressed in the prior post.

[Cail]

McConnell's owned by his donors, and they'd be impoverished by an end to our overseas military adventures. Lasting, meaningful peace would cripple our economy in the short term.

I realize that this position puts me at odds with the purported right wing echo chamber that supposedly exists here, but I've been pretty consistent for over a decade that we need to cut this crap out.

[Savor Dam]

You have, indeed, and you have a valid geopolitical point there. Whether that is worth the effects that "would cripple our economy in the short term" is the open question, for (among others) the political donors you mention, the beneficiaries of their largess, and of course the rest of us...not that we matter in the other two groups' calculus.

While I think you are on the right track as to why McConnell broke with POTUS on this issue, I still think it may be significant that he did so here, as he did last Thursday when the supposedly mighty Majority Leader could no longer hold the line in his caucus against ending the shutdown.

Trump now has only the Senate and the Supremes to count upon. Neither is necessarily solid, nu?

[Cail]

SCOTUS is leaning pretty textual at the moment, and RBG is in much worse shape than people are letting on. Form what I hear, she's not going to last another 6 months. At that point....get ready for the fireworks.

A great deal of this country's economy is spurred by the M/I complex. If we're not at war, we're not building, deploying, and using materiel. That's going to hurt the overall economy. Here in the DC area, we're dependent upon the government, the military, and the intelligence apparatus(es). Short term, not having an ongoing war would hurt, as it takes a while to beat swords into ploughshares.

If Trump manages to pull all our troops home, expect massive friction from the base of both parties.

[SoulBiter]

I was going through some of my old posts and noticed a discussion in the Barak Obama: Undistinguished Gentleman thread where at least three members here were expecting 7% unemployment to be the new normal (Hashi, Soulbiter, Wayfriend).

In this instance, I am glad that I was incorrect. We do not want 7% unemployment to be our new "normal".

Agreed. Glad to be wrong.

So anecdotally in distribution where I work, we had been getting more and more efficient with automation and had put many out of work. We were doing with 10 people what had taken 50 people. Across many areas where we had put this kind of automation in. We had decreased our headcount by hundreds of people that were no longer needed.

Oh how things change. Because of the online ordering and the VAS that is being asked prior to shipping, we have gone the other direction in many ways. We had to hire people to process the customer individual orders that have significantly increased. 30 units per box used to be a good average when we shipping more to stores. Now the average is closer to 5 with significantly more orders being 1 or 2 units. So now we have had to employ an army to perform the unit picking that we were doing in bulk before, and employ another army of people to do all the Value added services that are requested prior to shipping.

The economy is fluid in so many ways that its almost impossible to see where we go from decade to decade.

[Zarathustra]

Good to hear, Hashi and SB!

Cail, do you worry that a rapid pullout of troops in Afghanistan would have the same effect as Obama's rapid pullout of troops in Iraq--i.e. ISIS? Do you advocate a residual force be left?

[Cail]

Cail, do you worry that a rapid pullout of troops in Afghanistan would have the same effect as Obama's rapid pullout of troops in Iraq--i.e. ISIS? Do you advocate a residual force be left?

That's the million-dollar question, isn't it?

The problem in Iraq was that when we left, we failed to make it clear that we'd be back if they started any crap. Obama's failure to monitor the area - and then refer to the group that filled the AQ void the, "JV team" - simply compounded issues.

We need to get out. That's just not an arguable point now. It's been 17-1/2 years since 9/11. Other than a pile of dead bodies and a great return on defense contractor stocks, what have we accomplished in the ME? None of the governments we've fostered will survive without us there. There's still a 12th century mentality throughout the region.

We need to accept the fact that we can't fix the problem unless we're willing to kill a lot more people and keep a large occupying force in the region for at least the next hundred years.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No residual forces whatsoever. If some group--their name will be irrelevant--attacks American citizens in a foreign country or "bad actors" from a country launch a terror attack here then we should carpet-bomb that nation back to the Stone Age then take it over in its entirety. That is how you stop State-sponsored terrorism, not boots on the ground followed by diplomacy.

[Skyweir]

Totally loved reading these posts .. SD, Z, Cail .. all good points.

17.5 years is a long haul

[Savor Dam]

No residual forces whatsoever. If some group--their name will be irrelevant--attacks American citizens in a foreign country or "bad actors" from a country launch a terror attack here then we should carpet-bomb that nation back to the Stone Age then take it over in its entirety. That is how you stop State-sponsored terrorism, not boots on the ground followed by diplomacy.

Really?

• First of all, this putative group may or may not be in political control of the nation where they are, but it is unlikely that they represent the citizenry of that land. Carpet-bombing those innocents may not be the straightest path to hearts and minds.
  
  Second, "take it over in its entirety" will entail a huge commitment of people and resources that we can ill afford. Even more so if we have just killed many and destroyed much in the country; maybe they might not really welcome us? To object to residual boots-on-the-ground and then propose this doesn't make sense to me. What am I missing?
  
  Third, if we truly are going to assume responsibility for this nation where we just destroyed their infrastructure due to some splinter group that managed to successfully launch an attack on our citizens, we are going to be on the hook to rebuild all that infrastructure we just destroyed. We can't even get it together to fix our own crumbling infrastructure, but we are going to pay to rebuild a country we just leveled in a fit of pique?

No, I don't think this is the best course.

[Ur Dead]

Lets say something good about Trump.
(and no don't say he's a no good so...)

He has stays out of Brexit.

If Hillary was Pres.. I feels she would have put her nose in the mess
yelling about global economy and the UK should overthrow Brexit.
Or she would use the US to force the UK to back off.
Then she would take the credit for saving the EU.
She that power mad.

[TheFallen]

Lets say something good about Trump.
(and no don't say he's a no good so...)

He has stays out of Brexit.

If Hillary was Pres.. I feels she would have put her nose in the mess
yelling about global economy and the UK should overthrow Brexit.
Or she would use the US to force the UK to back off.
Then she would take the credit for saving the EU.
She that power mad.

How short your memory is, Ur Dead... Donald was busily jamming his nose into the Brexit issue pretty much all last year. As just two examples:-

This from mid July 18

And this from as recently as end Nov 18.

Now it could be argued that Trump has a right to express an opinion - but it's just plain wrong to claim that he's "stayed out of it".

[Ur Dead]

My memory isn't short because the story and repercussion really never
made a backlash on this side of the pond.

But I do find this part interesting.

"The United States is a tough negotiator," he told BBC Radio 4's
Today. "President Trump's always said very plainly 'I put America first'. Well,
I'd expect the British prime minister to put British interests first."

But he never came out and said that he would try to keep the UK in the EU.
He was disappointed that May caved to the EU wishes and that may have an
impact with any trade deal with the UK.

But right now focus with Trump is another government shutdown and the wall. Thats the headline here for the past 2 months.

Once thing for sure, when you think you know what he's going to do.
He changes the rules. You think chaos theory was based on him..

[Orlion]

Lets say something good about Trump.
(and no don't say he's a no good so...)

He has stays out of Brexit.

I would rephrase that as "Trump is not as big an anxiety inducing disaster as Brexit is turning out to be." Certainly damning with praise, but I like to think of it as a condemnation of the pure, almost Maduro levels of incompetence being shown by the UK Parliament.

To me, Trump has some Esmer-like tendencies. If he does something good, he has to try and fuck it up for balance to maintain some zero sum order.

Save people and companies money with tax breaks? Let's pick a trade war with China so all those savings go to increased cost of doing business!

Support a more legitimate government in Venezuela? Let's put in charge someone who amounts to a war criminal that was involved in horrendous human rights violations in concert counter revolutionary Central America!

I'm waiting to see how he tries to fuck up oil sanctions against Venezuela (a good thing).

[SoulBiter]

I do see the Esmer like tendencies LOL

However I do like that he is trying to fulfill his campaign promises. Stopping TPP was a win. I think forcing a renegotiation with China on trade was a good idea. Tariffs as a tactic should be a last resort, but do you really think they would have been willing to negotiate otherwise?