6 ms·

> The Pentagon’s top policy official, James Anderson, resigned in anticipation of being fired by Trump. What is the reasoning behind resigning when (presumably

by jooize 6y ago

> The Pentagon’s top policy official, James Anderson, resigned in anticipation of being fired by Trump. What is the reasoning behind resigning when (presumably) disagreeing with being fired? Is it all optics?

CobrastanJorji 6y ago
Some folks feel strongly about serving "at the pleasure of the President" and resign if they feel the President would prefer they do so. Some folks don't like the idea of news articles about them saying "fired." Some folks believe inaction cannot be the solution to a problem, even if it's the right choice.
atty 6y ago
Perhaps the method of leaving could have an impact on benefits or the ability to get future high level positions in the government?
ponker 6y ago
Why sit around waiting and wondering if you can just pack your bag and go home?
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
The tweets said Krebs called it the most secure election in history. I like Krebs, but how can an election with anyone on the voter rolls getting a ballot mailed to them possibly be the most secure ever? We are 100% certain our voter rolls are not entirely clean. I’m not saying there was voter fraud, but Kreb’s statement just seems odd. Best possible case, there was no chain of custody for ballots, so even if there were no issues or reasons to be suspicious, it just isn’t a great claim. If you look at the Trump tweets (ugh), it says dead people voting, software glitches switching voters, and observers being unequally treated. I’m sure in tiny tiny doses thats all possible. Should Krebs be fired just for saying the election was the most secure ever? Obviously not! ... but devil’s advocate, I don’t see how it could have been. We relaxed integrity requirements because of Covid, not increased them. Edit: look how little room there is to step out of line, hmm
- notRobot 6y ago
  He didn't say it was the most secure election possible. He said it was the most secure election in USA history. There's a difference.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    I wrote “in history” and “ever”. Where did I write “possible”? Maybe he’s right and even with all the unsolicited sending to everyone on the rolls and having USPS handle them it was still more secure. IDK. Maybe someone can explain it?
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      It can simultaneously be the case that everyone gets mailed a ballot AND it was the most secure election to date. It's certainly not axiomatic that mail in voting has a higher rate of fraud than any other system. Washington State is 100% mail in for years, and there's no evidence that things are any more fraudulent here than anywhere else, but it is much easier for people to vote.
      - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        In what ways was the election made more secure? What states increased their voter integrity laws by means of legislature or policy or governor’s order? I’m not being facetious. I looked for added regulations, I only found relaxed rules because of Covid. Now. What Covid does that means you can’t sign your ballot, IDK, separate topic.
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        If it was made more accessible, but not less secure, then the rate of fraud is lower. More participants means the impact of fraud is lower if everything else stays the same. I don't see any evidence that there was any reduction in "voter integrity". (Whatever that means.)
adrianmonk 6y ago
Perhaps this counts as optics, but I see it as a way of offering evidence to the outside world that the feeling is mutual. If you were satisfied with the job/conditions/policies, then you might choose to continue to try to stay employed there. Of course, it's not strong evidence because nobody knows how much choice you had in the matter. If you quit when you have a 75% chance of being fired, that means something different than quitting when you have 100% chance of being fired in the next 30 seconds, and the outside world doesn't know which is the case.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
In 10yr Wikipedia will say "resigned" instead of "fired" and that's as deep as anyone will care to dig.
- bathtub365 6y ago
  Do you have another example of this happening?

by jooize 6y ago

CobrastanJorji 6y ago

Some folks feel strongly about serving "at the pleasure of the President" and resign if they feel the President would prefer they do so. Some folks don't like the idea of news articles about them saying "fired." Some folks believe inaction cannot be the solution to a problem, even if it's the right choice.

atty 6y ago

Perhaps the method of leaving could have an impact on benefits or the ability to get future high level positions in the government?

ponker 6y ago

Why sit around waiting and wondering if you can just pack your bag and go home?

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

The tweets said Krebs called it the most secure election in history. I like Krebs, but how can an election with anyone on the voter rolls getting a ballot mailed to them possibly be the most secure ever? We are 100% certain our voter rolls are not entirely clean. I’m not saying there was voter fraud, but Kreb’s statement just seems odd. Best possible case, there was no chain of custody for ballots, so even if there were no issues or reasons to be suspicious, it just isn’t a great claim. If you look at the Trump tweets (ugh), it says dead people voting, software glitches switching voters, and observers being unequally treated. I’m sure in tiny tiny doses thats all possible. Should Krebs be fired just for saying the election was the most secure ever? Obviously not! ... but devil’s advocate, I don’t see how it could have been. We relaxed integrity requirements because of Covid, not increased them. Edit: look how little room there is to step out of line, hmm

notRobot 6y ago
He didn't say it was the most secure election possible. He said it was the most secure election in USA history. There's a difference.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  I wrote “in history” and “ever”. Where did I write “possible”? Maybe he’s right and even with all the unsolicited sending to everyone on the rolls and having USPS handle them it was still more secure. IDK. Maybe someone can explain it?
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    It can simultaneously be the case that everyone gets mailed a ballot AND it was the most secure election to date. It's certainly not axiomatic that mail in voting has a higher rate of fraud than any other system. Washington State is 100% mail in for years, and there's no evidence that things are any more fraudulent here than anywhere else, but it is much easier for people to vote.
    - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      In what ways was the election made more secure? What states increased their voter integrity laws by means of legislature or policy or governor’s order? I’m not being facetious. I looked for added regulations, I only found relaxed rules because of Covid. Now. What Covid does that means you can’t sign your ballot, IDK, separate topic.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        If it was made more accessible, but not less secure, then the rate of fraud is lower. More participants means the impact of fraud is lower if everything else stays the same. I don't see any evidence that there was any reduction in "voter integrity". (Whatever that means.)

adrianmonk 6y ago

Perhaps this counts as optics, but I see it as a way of offering evidence to the outside world that the feeling is mutual. If you were satisfied with the job/conditions/policies, then you might choose to continue to try to stay employed there. Of course, it's not strong evidence because nobody knows how much choice you had in the matter. If you quit when you have a 75% chance of being fired, that means something different than quitting when you have 100% chance of being fired in the next 30 seconds, and the outside world doesn't know which is the case.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

In 10yr Wikipedia will say "resigned" instead of "fired" and that's as deep as anyone will care to dig.

bathtub365 6y ago
Do you have another example of this happening?