What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

Which inherently implausible motives are we talking about in this particular case?  Presumably it's not reducing government expenditure.

Actually yes, it is implausible that is Musk's motive because after two months, he has only cost the government money and hasn't saved a dime.

But that wasn't what I was referring to.  I was referring to the claim that he needs to see top secret Chinese war plans because it will help shape his carefully thought and finely calibrated analysis of the DoD budget.  Nothing about Musk's activities suggest any deep thought had gone into his personnel and program decisions and nothing in his background suggests deep understanding of the interaction between operational planning and defense procurement decision-making.

[Zoupa]

I mean

qed

Dude can you think of a good reason why Elon Musk would be brought into a meeting discussing war plans against China?

Seriously. I can't think of a valid one.

[Admiral Yi]

Dude can you think of a good reason why Elon Musk would be brought into a meeting discussing war plans against China?

Seriously. I can't think of a valid one.

This one is easy.  Donald Trump was legally elected president, and that's what he wants.

[Zoupa]

Dude can you think of a good reason why Elon Musk would be brought into a meeting discussing war plans against China?

Seriously. I can't think of a valid one.

This one is easy.  Donald Trump was legally elected president, and that's what he wants.

That is an explanation of what is happening. It is not a good, valid reason.

Also I think your system kinda sucks if the president can decide willy-nilly who can sit in on your most classified stuff.

[Sheilbh]

This one is easy.  Donald Trump was legally elected president, and that's what he wants.

Sure and should the NYT not ask someone in government to say that? On or off the record would work, "sources close to".

I don't see why, or how it's journalistically responsible for them speculate. While if Donald Trump, duly elected, has instructed this then it's news.

[Admiral Yi]

Actually yes, it is implausible that is Musk's motive because after two months, he has only cost the government money and hasn't saved a dime.

But that wasn't what I was referring to.  I was referring to the claim that he needs to see top secret Chinese war plans because it will help shape his carefully thought and finely calibrated analysis of the DoD budget.  Nothing about Musk's activities suggest any deep thought had gone into his personnel and program decisions and nothing in his background suggests deep understanding of the interaction between operational planning and defense procurement decision-making.

The NYT didn't try to make the case that Musk is a careful thinker about national security needs.  It posited a hypothetical, that one who is a careful thinker would need this information to make optimal choices.

[Admiral Yi]

That is an explanation of what is happening. It is not a good, valid reason.

Also I think your system kinda sucks if the president can decide willy-nilly who can sit in on your most classified stuff.

I don't know what you mean by good, valid reason.  Does it mean a reason you agree with? 

Donald Trump was elected president fairly.  His will is policy now.  Musk is operationalizing his will.  The way in which he operationalizes it is either legal or it's not legal.  The courts are the ultimate arbiter of that question.

I agree that the president's power to arbitrarily make decisions about security clearances and document classification and Secret Service details is terrifying.  There are a whole host of government functions we need to insulate from Trump like interference.  Maybe Shelf's thesis that every presidential system is a dictatorship waiting to happen is correct.

Now that we agree on all that, how should we proceed?

[Admiral Yi]

Sure and should the NYT not ask someone in government to say that? On or off the record would work, "sources close to".

I don't see why, or how it's journalistically responsible for them speculate. While if Donald Trump, duly elected, has instructed this then it's news.

Speculate about what?  I don't follow your point.

[Zoupa]

That is an explanation of what is happening. It is not a good, valid reason.

Also I think your system kinda sucks if the president can decide willy-nilly who can sit in on your most classified stuff.

I don't know what you mean by good, valid reason.  Does it mean a reason you agree with? 

Donald Trump was elected president fairly.  His will is policy now.  Musk is operationalizing his will.  The way in which he operationalizes it is either legal or it's not legal.  The courts are the ultimate arbiter of that question.

I agree that the president's power to arbitrarily make decisions about security clearances and document classification and Secret Service details is terrifying.  There are a whole host of government functions we need to insulate from Trump like interference.  Maybe Shelf's thesis that every presidential system is a dictatorship waiting to happen is correct.

Now that we agree on all that, how should we proceed?

Since we were originally talking about the NYT, I believe they should proceed by not speculating about a possible logical reason for Musk to sit in on warplans. It stood out to me right away in the article, as in "why are they even writing this".

It's not a breach of ethics but a breach of journalism standards. It stands out starkly considering Musk's track record at DOGE.

[Admiral Yi]

Again, what speculation?

[Sheilbh]

Speculate about what?  I don't follow your point.

But there is a possible reason Mr. Musk might have needed to know aspects of the war plan. If Mr. Musk and his team of cost cutters from the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, want to trim the Pentagon budget in a responsible way, they may need to know what weapons systems the Pentagon plans to use in a fight with China.

Journalists aren't there to give "possible reasons" without any context of where that explanation has come from. That is speculation in factual reporting.

But by all means get someone in the White House to say Trump ordered it- that's news. Similarly, get someone close to Musk or in the Pentagon to say it - on or off the record - and people can judge because they know where that's come from and if someone's willing to put their name behind it.

Given that what Musk has done so far in response to the original story has been to say it's untrue and launch a leak inquiry in the Pentagon into who leaked it, I'm not sure the NYT should be giving the benefit of their passive "voice from nowhere" reporting in "there is a possible reason". Is that an explanation that's been given? If so, who is saying that? Where does it come from? Is it just journalists spitballing possible reasons?

Answering those questions all give different implications particularly in a situation when Musk is challenging the underlying facts.

Edit: I mean even "conservative think tank x said a possible reason is..." would work here.

[viper37]

His will is policy now.

In other words, he is the King of the USA?

[Admiral Yi]

Journalists aren't there to give "possible reasons" without any context of where that explanation has come from. That is speculation in factual reporting.

This is the same kind of willful misinterpretation that led me down the path of grim, unrelenting opposition to political correctness.

An "if" statement does not mean the dependent clause is true!!!!

[Sheilbh]

What's the wilful misinterpretation? "There is a possible reason...if...they may need to know". How is that not speculation?

Musk does not have an official job in the US government. His "department" does not exist because of Congressional authority.

The NYT is reporting that they're getting clearance information on the most highly sensitive bits of the DoD. Musk has said that's a lie. The NYT is also reporting possible reasons Musk may need that clearance that he denies he has.

As I say get Musk's mate on the phone to say there's a possible reason he needs it. Get the White House to say "we want him to do this job" or the Pentagon to confirm he needs it. On or off the record all of that is responsible reporting. This is speculation in the NYT's ex cathedra voice.

Edit: Also I knowing nothing about grammar - but surely speculation is never stating things that are necessarily true? They might be true - that's what speculation means, no?

[grumbler]

Yeah, that article was full of unsubstabtaited speculation.  For instance, it claims that "If a foreign country were to learn how the United States planned to fight a war against them, it could reinforce its defenses and address its weaknesses, making the plans far less likely to succeed" without any attribution of this claim. 

Same for "Whatever the meeting will now be about, the planning reflected the extraordinary dual role played by Mr. Musk, who is both the world's wealthiest man and has been given broad authority by Mr. Trump." Speculation without attribution.

The NYT is now just Fox News North.