What President Trump Have To Hide?
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Just because the president has the RIGHT to fire or force out lots of people doesn't mean it's good for the country that he or she does so.Obligation. He has the obligation to do so if necessary. That is one of the reasons we elected him and may again if the job isn't done in time.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Just because the president has the RIGHT to fire or force out lots of people doesn't mean it's good for the country that he or she does so.Obligation. He has the obligation to do so if necessary. That is one of the reasons we elected him and may again if the job isn't done in time.
Do you believe the president had the "obligation" to hire the right people - those, during the 2016 campaign, he promised would be the "best" people - from the beginning? Or was his only "obligation" to continue to hire and fire until he found those promised "best" people? What does the fact that Trump recently appointed his third national security advisor in 14 months suggest to you about his ability to find the "best" people for their jobs?
Remember, the only Obama-holdover among the dozens who have resigned or been fired from the administration to-date, was the former VA Secretary David Shulkin... whom the president proposes be replaced by the White House physician, a Navy admiral renowned as a doctor, but who has no management experience that could have prepared him to manage such a large, complex, and necessary agency. In fact, according to most accounts, Admiral Ronny Jackson's first-order credential for the VA post appears to the praise of the president's health he offered during a press briefing in January.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Do you believe the president had the "obligation" to hire the right people - those, during the 2016 campaign, he promised would be the "best" people - from the beginning?Mmhmmm. Exactly. That is what Trump is doing. Did you really think he is magic or something and knew how every last person on who staff would behave ahead of time? He is being a good manager doing what a good manager does. He isn't seized up in partisan politics or touchy-feely whims and thus unable to hire well. Whatever his failures, Trump just works. I have done hiring and can tell you that however good you are at hiring, you sometimes get a mismatch. Often we can find another task for the mismatched person or live with their imperfection. A President shouldn't do that with his staff. I bet you didn't know that.
Or was his only "obligation" to continue to hire and fire until he found those promised "best" people?
Why not? I would. Good business managers do that. Trump seems to have excelled at that all his life.
What does the fact that Trump recently appointed his third national security advisor in 14 months suggest to you about his ability to find the "best" people for their jobs?
It tells me that he can sniff out a rat and will do the right thing when he finds one. He is a great manager and moves puzzle pieces around to the optimum effect. Amazing man, Trump is.
Remember, the only Obama-holdover among the dozens who have resigned or been fired from the administration to-date, was the former VA Secretary David Shulkin... whom the president proposes be replaced by the White House physician, a Navy admiral renowned as a doctor, but who has no management experience that could have prepared him to manage such a large, complex, and necessary agency. In fact, according to most accounts, Admiral Ronny Jackson's first-order credential for the VA post appears to the praise of the president's health he offered during a press briefing in January.
Yeah, so big deal. Perhaps you had a point. If so you greased it up so slick it shot right past me. Actually, I don't follow such details as I find them utterly meaningless drivel. Would you care to try to convince me otherwise?
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Do you believe the president had the "obligation" to hire the right people - those, during the 2016 campaign, he promised would be the "best" people - from the beginning?Mmhmmm. Exactly. That is what Trump is doing. Did you really think he is magic or something and knew how every last person on who staff would behave ahead of time? He is being a good manager doing what a good manager does. He isn't seized up in partisan politics or touchy-feely whims and thus unable to hire well. Whatever his failures, Trump just works. I have done hiring and can tell you that however good you are at hiring, you sometimes get a mismatch. Often we can find another task for the mismatched person or live with their imperfection. A President shouldn't do that with his staff. I bet you didn't know that.
Or was his only "obligation" to continue to hire and fire until he found those promised "best" people?
Why not? I would. Good business managers do that. Trump seems to have excelled at that all his life.
What does the fact that Trump recently appointed his third national security advisor in 14 months suggest to you about his ability to find the "best" people for their jobs?
It tells me that he can sniff out a rat and will do the right thing when he finds one. He is a great manager and moves puzzle pieces around to the optimum effect. Amazing man, Trump is.
Remember, the only Obama-holdover among the dozens who have resigned or been fired from the administration to-date, was the former VA Secretary David Shulkin... whom the president proposes be replaced by the White House physician, a Navy admiral renowned as a doctor, but who has no management experience that could have prepared him to manage such a large, complex, and necessary agency. In fact, according to most accounts, Admiral Ronny Jackson's first-order credential for the VA post appears to the praise of the president's health he offered during a press briefing in January.
Yeah, so big deal. Perhaps you had a point. If so you greased it up so slick it shot right past me. Actually, I don't follow such details as I find them utterly meaningless drivel. Would you care to try to convince me otherwise?
Exactly, nobody would say anything if this were a business. Schools do this all the time with teachers and everyone accepts it as necessary and proper. Good grief.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Exactly, nobody would say anything if this were a business. Schools do this all the time with teachers and everyone accepts it as necessary and proper. Good grief.Two responses, David:
1) One of Trump's many problems is that he has not adjusted to the reality that the federal government is NOT a business and presidents are not CEOs. As head of his family business, his was the final word on nearly all matters. As president, his authority is great, but not nearly as unlimited. For example,
- He can't appropriate money
- He can't confirm cabinet nominations
- He can't declare war
- His vetoes of legislation can be overridden
- He must obey court orders
2) As for school districts and their teachers, it's important to note that at issue here is NOT simply hiring and firing, which indeed is something school districts do "all the time." The issue is the rate of hiring and firing - in the Trump administration, a rate that is two to five times higher than the rate of any of the previous five administrations. In such a setting, your claim that "schools do this all the time with teachers" means the rate of school district teacher resignations and firings is "all the time" two to five times greater than in any of the previous (some number of) years. And that claim is simply not true (though if you provide links to data that show it is, I'll gladly stand corrected).
School districts do not "all the time" hire and fire teachers at rates dramatically greater than in previous years (decades?) If they did, stories of those rates' increases would be in media all over the country; they're not.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Exactly, nobody would say anything if this were a business. Schools do this all the time with teachers and everyone accepts it as necessary and proper. Good grief.Two responses, David:
1) One of Trump's many problems is that he has not adjusted to the reality that the federal government is NOT a business and presidents are not CEOs. As head of his family business, his was the final word on nearly all matters. As president, his authority is great, but not nearly as unlimited. For example,
- He can't appropriate money
- He can't confirm cabinet nominations
- He can't declare war
- His vetoes of legislation can be overridden
- He must obey court orders
Actually the Federal Government should be run as a business. We would have a lot less financial trouble.
I agree on the part of him not being an all powerful CEO like in his family business but he is the Chief Executive Officer of the country but cannot usurp the board of directors. No, he can't confirm cabinet nominations but he definitely can fire them.
2) As for school districts and their teachers, it's important to note that at issue here is NOT simply hiring and firing, which indeed is something school districts do "all the time." The issue is the rate of hiring and firing - in the Trump administration, a rate that is two to five times higher than the rate of any of the previous five administrations. In such a setting, your claim that "schools do this all the time with teachers" means the rate of school district teacher resignations and firings is "all the time" two to five times greater than in any of the previous (some number of) years. And that claim is simply not true (though if you provide links to data that show it is, I'll gladly stand corrected).
School districts do not "all the time" hire and fire teachers at rates dramatically greater than in previous years (decades?) If they did, stories of those rates' increases would be in media all over the country; they're not.
Perhaps Washington needed a change. The Democrats keep trying to paint this administration as utter chaos, but I just don't see it. It's getting things done at a higher rate than the past 5 administrations despite the Democrats trying to stall him every step of the way.
The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Mmhmmm. Exactly. That is what Trump is doing. Did you really think he is magic or something and knew how every last person on who staff would behave ahead of time? He is being a good manager doing what a good manager does. He isn't seized up in partisan politics or touchy-feely whims and thus unable to hire well. Whatever his failures, Trump just works. I have done hiring and can tell you that however good you are at hiring, you sometimes get a mismatch. Often we can find another task for the mismatched person or live with their imperfection. A President shouldn't do that with his staff. I bet you didn't know that.
At issue, Gao Lu, is not the outcome of any one or small group of presidential appointments/hires. OF COURSE, no appointment is guaranteed to turn out as expected. At issue is the rate at which appointments/hires have not turned out well for a president who claimed to be really good at finding the "best" people.
EVERY administration loses people in its first year. But not every administration replaces high level staffers at a rate two to five times higher than its predecessors, ESPECIALLY not administrations led by one who claims to excel at finding the "best" people.
Or was his only "obligation" to continue to hire and fire until he found those promised "best" people?
Why not? I would. Good business managers do that. Trump seems to have excelled at that all his life.
Trump has "excelled" at firing people because they weren't the "best" people he thought they were when he hired them?
What does the fact that Trump recently appointed his third national security advisor in 14 months suggest to you about his ability to find the "best" people for their jobs?
It tells me that he can sniff out a rat and will do the right thing when he finds one. He is a great manager and moves puzzle pieces around to the optimum effect. Amazing man, Trump is.
Shouldn't a manager who claims to hire the "best" people - and frankly, even lots of managers who don't claim to hire the "best" people - be able to "sniff out a rat" BEFORE he or she hires the rat?
Yeah, so big deal. Perhaps you had a point. If so you greased it up so slick it shot right past me. Actually, I don't follow such details as I find them utterly meaningless drivel. Would you care to try to convince me otherwise?
Had the president, with any level of concern or ability "follow(ed) such details" regarding his national security advisor appointments, perhaps he wouldn't have had to fire two of them in the first fourteen months of his term (one of those fired having accepted a plea deal to cooperate as a witness in a criminal investigation of the president who fired him).
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Perhaps Washington needed a change. The Democrats keep trying to paint this administration as utter chaos, but I just don't see it. It's getting things done at a higher rate than the past 5 administrations despite the Democrats trying to stall him every step of the way.It's not just Democrats who "paint this administration as utter chaos." Many media reports in the last few months have quoted White House staffers as issuing the same kind of diagnosis. Media reports aside, there's a problem when high level people are leaving, whether voluntarily or otherwise, at a rate two to five times that of previous administrations. That's NOT normal. And it can't be healthy.
Trump's been getting things done? We disagree.
Your response here makes no reference to your previous claim - which I disputed - that school districts "all the time" hire and fire people the way Trump has. Does that mean you acknowledge the rate of hiring and firing in this administration is not the same as what happens "all the time" in school districts?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Perhaps Washington needed a change. The Democrats keep trying to paint this administration as utter chaos, but I just don't see it. It's getting things done at a higher rate than the past 5 administrations despite the Democrats trying to stall him every step of the way.It's not just Democrats who "paint this administration as utter chaos." Many media reports in the last few months have quoted White House staffers as issuing the same kind of diagnosis. Media reports aside, there's a problem when high level people are leaving, whether voluntarily or otherwise, at a rate two to five times that of previous administrations. That's NOT normal. And it can't be healthy.
That's assuming that times have been great and government hsa been great under those administrations. That being said, what media? The liberal media?
Trump's been getting things done? We disagree.
Your response here makes no reference to your previous claim - which I disputed - that school districts "all the time" hire and fire people the way Trump has. Does that mean you acknowledge the rate of hiring and firing in this administration is not the same as what happens "all the time" in school districts?
I think you focus on the wrong things.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
That's assuming that times have been great and government hsa been great under those administrations. That being said, what media? The liberal media?No assumptions about the quality of the times or the government are involved in my assertion that hiring and firing at a rate two to five times that of previous administrations is not normal or healthy. A president who claims to hire the "best" people shouldn't have to fire/replace his hires as often as Trump has had to.
Even "conservative" and "liberal" media outlets can quote White House sources accurately.
I think you focus on the wrong things.
I focused on the hiring and firing of teachers because YOU raised the hiring and firing of teachers.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
That's assuming that times have been great and government hsa been great under those administrations. That being said, what media? The liberal media?No assumptions about the quality of the times or the government are involved in my assertion that hiring and firing at a rate two to five times that of previous administrations is not normal or healthy. A president who claims to hire the "best" people shouldn't have to fire/replace his hires as often as Trump has had to.
Even "conservative" and "liberal" media outlets can quote White House sources accurately.
The best in field might not get along with your philosophy. Once again, you focus on the wrong things.
I think you focus on the wrong things.
I focused on the hiring and firing of teachers because YOU raised the hiring and firing of teachers.
No you focused on increased firing rates.
-
> The best in field might not get along with your philosophy. Once again, you focus on the wrong things.
> I think you focus on the wrong things.
> No you focused on increased firing rates.
For the record, David, I note that a concern for the focus of my posts was not your original objection. Your original objection was that the Trump administration's rate of hiring and firing is commonplace, something that occurs "all the time" in school districts' employment of teachers. When I contended that your comparison is invalid, you abandoned it without further comment, and switched to the focus issue. -
@Bill_Coley said:
> The best in field might not get along with your philosophy. Once again, you focus on the wrong things.
> I think you focus on the wrong things.
> No you focused on increased firing rates.
For the record, David, I note that a concern for the focus of my posts was not your original objection. Your original objection was that the Trump administration's rate of hiring and firing is commonplace, something that occurs "all the time" in school districts' employment of teachers. When I contended that your comparison is invalid, you abandoned it without further comment, and switched to the focus issue.So you don't like it when I say Apples and Oranges but it is ok for you ;P
-
At issue, Gao Lu, is not the outcome of any one or small group of presidential appointments/hires. OF COURSE, no appointment is guaranteed to turn out as expected. At issue is the rate at which appointments/hires have not turned out well for a president who claimed to be really good at finding the "best" people.
Very wise of you to acknowledge this salient point.
EVERY administration loses people in its first year. But not every administration replaces high level staffers at a rate two to five times higher than its predecessors, ESPECIALLY not administrations led by one who claims to excel at finding the "best" people.
I regret that this bothers you so. Many of us are rather pleased at how Mr. Trump is tuning a government engine that has been blowing black smoke for decades. It still has a few knocks and puffs of steam, but overall, listen to that baby hum!
Trump has "excelled" at firing people because they weren't the "best" people he thought they were when he hired them?
Right. I have had to do that too. I could tell you about I_____, but better not, She was a minority and the wrath of lawsuits was the law by which she lived. She presented so well at her interview, looked flawless on paper and within days I knew she was a bust. It took 2 months to get rid of her. Everyone was happy (Probably you would have been an exception).
Shouldn't a manager who claims to hire the "best" people - and frankly, even lots of managers who don't claim to hire the "best" people - be able to "sniff out a rat" BEFORE he or she hires the rat?
Oh, wouldn't that be nice! Good managers sniff out a lot of rats, but no one gets them all. I did interviews for hiring our staff with this old bear of a lady who wore half glasses and looked like she chewed 20 penny nails up for breakfast. She wasn't much to look at but she could smell rats half a mile away, and that is why I did interviews with her. But even she she missed a few. Too bad Trump doesn't have her on his interview team.
Background: I also performed interviews for various companies as a team member. We particularly interviewed welfare clients, the unemployed and disadvantaged populations amounting to several hundred people over several years. That might be a different demographic from what Trump hires, but many of the same fundamentals apply.
That is my claim to experience. What is yours? You interviewed people....at a funeral home? No wonder....:)
Had the president, with any level of concern or ability "follow(ed) such details" regarding his national security advisor appointments, perhaps he wouldn't have had to fire two of them in the first fourteen months of his term (one of those fired having accepted a plea deal to cooperate as a witness in a criminal investigation of the president who fired him).
Bill you and CM are cut from the same bull-frog hide, aren't you? Negative, negative, negative. Can you say something positive at all? Maybe about the resurrection of something? Do you even believe in that?
I for one think the President is doing a really good job. I see his hires and fires as a necessary part of cleaning out a badly fouled up system. He took over the chaos to clean it up and is doing exactly that. Cleaning up the mess is what Trump said he would do and what Americans wanted. Good job, Mr. President Donald Trump!
Chin up Bill! Smell the freshly-brewed coffee! Feel the sunshine on your skin. Inhale the flowers of spring. It's a beautiful day! These times have their troubles, but they are good times. I am very happy and going about my business and rather enjoy a few minutes writing here. Refreshing!
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
So you don't like it when I say Apples and Oranges but it is ok for you ;PWhen you claim "apples and oranges," David, that's all you say; you offer no additional information. When I claim a comparison is invalid, I explain why I think the comparison is invalid. Revisit the way I objected to your schools and teachers comparison...
"As for school districts and their teachers, it's important to note that at issue here is NOT simply hiring and firing, which indeed is something school districts do "all the time." The issue is the rate of hiring and firing - in the Trump administration, a rate that is two to five times higher than the rate of any of the previous five administrations. In such a setting, your claim that "schools do this all the time with teachers" means the rate of school district teacher resignations and firings is "all the time" two to five times greater than in any of the previous (some number of) years. And that claim is simply not true (though if you provide links to data that show it is, I'll gladly stand corrected).
"School districts do not "all the time" hire and fire teachers at rates dramatically greater than in previous years (decades?) If they did, stories of those rates' increases would be in media all over the country; they're not."
No "apples." No "oranges." Just explanation... with which you may agree or disagree, but those paragraphs explain why I believe your comparison is invalid in a way the phrase "Apples and oranges" cannot.
I object to "apples and oranges" because those words issue a conclusion, but give no information about how you arrived at it.
-
Here is what I think we have going on. You might bookmark this for future reference. Compiled from Dr. Eggerich.
There are those who find delight in misleading others. As tough as this is for me to say, some people enter politics because they derive personal fulfillment from the “gotcha” approach to issues. It isn’t about what is true but about the political chess game. The key is to put a better spin on a matter than the other candidate and to put the opposition in checkmate.
“They like this polemical game. This amuses them more than I imagine. It is a contest that invigorates them.”
In this environment they do not suffer the liability for slander and lies. The courts give them a pass in politics
Rightly representing is not the name of the game. Winning is the name of the game. Thus, after a TV interview they high-five it with their party peers when their spin of misleading comments proves persuasive.
There are any number of reasons people create fake news, but some do it for one reason: it is a game to see if they can get away with it.
-
@GaoLu said:
I regret that this bothers you so. Many of us are rather pleased at how Mr. Trump is tuning a government engine that has been blowing black smoke for decades. It still has a few knocks and puffs of steam, but overall, listen to that baby hum!The people who are resigning or are getting fired ARE PEOPLE TRUMP HIRED! They're not legacy appointments of the "government engine" under previous presidents. TRUMP hired them. TRUMP believed they were the "best" people. TRUMP believed they were the people needed to make the "baby hum."
Yet at a rate two to five times greater than any administration in the last 37 years, the people TRUMP hired because HE thought they were the "best" people are resigning or getting fired. More troubling, as I've shown in previous posts in this thread, the rate of resignations and firings in the Trump administration is INCREASING with time, not decreasing. As the "baby hums" better and better - as Trump hires and fires more of the right people for the job - shouldn't that rate decline? Or is it your view that government efficiency is directly proportional to resignation and firing activity? The more resignations and firings in a government per time period, the more efficient that government is, and vice versa? A resignation/firing rate that rises over the span of an administration reflect rising government efficiency?
Trump has "excelled" at firing people because they weren't the "best" people he thought they were when he hired them?
Right. I have had to do that too. I could tell you about I_____, but better not, She was a minority and the wrath of lawsuits was the law by which she lived. She presented so well at her interview, looked flawless on paper and within days I knew she was a bust. It took 2 months to get rid of her. Everyone was happy (Probably you would have been an exception).
So you missed on her. That happens. I bet you learned something from the experience, and brought that learning into future interviews. Perhaps as a result of that learning, the rate at which employees you hired had to be removed within two months because you missed something about them declined. If so, that was a good outcome.
A bet another outcome that arose - at least if you learned from your mistakes - was that the rate at which you had to get rid of employees within two months because you missed something in the interviews declined with time.
That outcome hasn't happened in the Trump administration.
Shouldn't a manager who claims to hire the "best" people - and frankly, even lots of managers who don't claim to hire the "best" people - be able to "sniff out a rat" BEFORE he or she hires the rat?
Oh, wouldn't that be nice! Good managers sniff out a lot of rats, but no one gets them all. I did interviews for hiring our staff with this old bear of a lady who wore half glasses and looked like she chewed 20 penny nails up for breakfast. She wasn't much to look at but she could smell rats half a mile away, and that is why I did interviews with her. But even she she missed a few. Too bad Trump doesn't have her on his interview team.
Did that lady claim she hired "the best people," unlike her predecessors had hired?
Background: I also performed interviews for various companies as a team member. We particularly interviewed welfare clients, the unemployed and disadvantaged populations amounting to several hundred people over several years. That might be a different demographic from what Trump hires, but many of the same fundamentals apply.
That is my claim to experience. What is yours? You interviewed people....at a funeral home? No wonder....:)
Your and my experience with interviewing people is irrelevant to our current exchange. At issue is President Trump's record of performance over the first 14 months of his administration. Does that record show that he hired the "best" people, as he claimed he would? You seem to believe it does. I believe it does not.
Bill you and CM are cut from the same bull-frog hide, aren't you? Negative, negative, negative. Can you say something positive at all? Maybe about the resurrection of something? Do you even believe in that?
Neither CM, I, nor what you believe to be our shared origins and point of view is relevant to our current exchange. What IS relevant is the rate at which Trump appointees and cabinet secretaries have resigned or been fired in the first 14 months of the administration, and what that rate says about the president's performance in office. You seem to believe that rate reflects "a necessary part of cleaning out a badly fouled up system." I believe it is evidence of chaos, incompetence, and pending crisis.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
I regret that this bothers you so. Many of us are rather pleased at how Mr. Trump is tuning a government engine that has been blowing black smoke for decades. It still has a few knocks and puffs of steam, but overall, listen to that baby hum!The people who are resigning or are getting fired ARE PEOPLE TRUMP HIRED! They're not legacy appointments of the "government engine" under previous presidents. TRUMP hired them. TRUMP believed they were the "best" people. TRUMP believed they were the people needed to make the "baby hum."
Yet at a rate two to five times greater than any administration in the last 37 years, the people TRUMP hired because HE thought they were the "best" people are resigning or getting fired. More troubling, as I've shown in previous posts in this thread, the rate of resignations and firings in the Trump administration is INCREASING with time, not decreasing. As the "baby hums" better and better - as Trump hires and fires more of the right people for the job - shouldn't that rate decline? Or is it your view that government efficiency is directly proportional to resignation and firing activity? The more resignations and firings in a government per time period, the more efficient that government is, and vice versa? A resignation/firing rate that rises over the span of an administration reflect rising government efficiency?
Trump has "excelled" at firing people because they weren't the "best" people he thought they were when he hired them?
Right. I have had to do that too. I could tell you about I_____, but better not, She was a minority and the wrath of lawsuits was the law by which she lived. She presented so well at her interview, looked flawless on paper and within days I knew she was a bust. It took 2 months to get rid of her. Everyone was happy (Probably you would have been an exception).
So you missed on her. That happens. I bet you learned something from the experience, and brought that learning into future interviews. Perhaps as a result of that learning, the rate at which employees you hired had to be removed within two months because you missed something about them declined. If so, that was a good outcome.
A bet another outcome that arose - at least if you learned from your mistakes - was that the rate at which you had to get rid of employees within two months because you missed something in the interviews declined with time.
That outcome hasn't happened in the Trump administration.
Shouldn't a manager who claims to hire the "best" people - and frankly, even lots of managers who don't claim to hire the "best" people - be able to "sniff out a rat" BEFORE he or she hires the rat?
Oh, wouldn't that be nice! Good managers sniff out a lot of rats, but no one gets them all. I did interviews for hiring our staff with this old bear of a lady who wore half glasses and looked like she chewed 20 penny nails up for breakfast. She wasn't much to look at but she could smell rats half a mile away, and that is why I did interviews with her. But even she she missed a few. Too bad Trump doesn't have her on his interview team.
Did that lady claim she hired "the best people," unlike her predecessors had hired?
Background: I also performed interviews for various companies as a team member. We particularly interviewed welfare clients, the unemployed and disadvantaged populations amounting to several hundred people over several years. That might be a different demographic from what Trump hires, but many of the same fundamentals apply.
That is my claim to experience. What is yours? You interviewed people....at a funeral home? No wonder....:)
Your and my experience with interviewing people is irrelevant to our current exchange. At issue is President Trump's record of performance over the first 14 months of his administration. Does that record show that he hired the "best" people, as he claimed he would? You seem to believe it does. I believe it does not.
Bill you and CM are cut from the same bull-frog hide, aren't you? Negative, negative, negative. Can you say something positive at all? Maybe about the resurrection of something? Do you even believe in that?
Neither CM, I, nor what you believe to be our shared origins and point of view is relevant to our current exchange. What IS relevant is the rate at which Trump appointees and cabinet secretaries have resigned or been fired in the first 14 months of the administration, and what that rate says about the president's performance in office. You seem to believe that rate reflects "a necessary part of cleaning out a badly fouled up system." I believe it is evidence of chaos, incompetence, and pending crisis.
I don't think it reflects his performance in office at all.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I don't think it reflects his performance in office at all.
I respect your view, David.
I believe the quality of presidential nominees and appointees affects governmental efficiency and effectiveness. I also believe unexpectedly short tenures for presidential appointees and cabinet secretaries are detrimental to the quality of performance of those people, in the same way that unexpectedly short pastoral tenures are detrimental to the quality of performance of those pastors.
For those reasons, I believe the actions of presidents who make bad appointments or abruptly end good ones, reflect negatively on the presidents who take them.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I don't think it reflects his performance in office at all.
I respect your view, David.
I believe the quality of presidential nominees and appointees affects governmental efficiency and effectiveness. I also believe unexpectedly short tenures for presidential appointees and cabinet secretaries are detrimental to the quality of performance of those people, in the same way that unexpectedly short pastoral tenures are detrimental to the quality of performance of those pastors.
For those reasons, I believe the actions of presidents who make bad appointments or abruptly end good ones, reflect negatively on the presidents who take them.
It impacts efficiency and effectiveness yet he is one of the most efficient presidents (as far as actually implementing agenda) in modern history.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Actually the Federal Government should be run as a business. We would have a lot less financial trouble.
I agree on the part of him not being an all powerful CEO like in his family business but he is the Chief Executive Officer of the country but cannot usurp the board of directors. No, he can't confirm cabinet nominations but he definitely can fire them.
A child can't build a sand castle, but he can destroy one. Any old mule can kick down a barn, but it takes skills, knowledge, and cooperation to build one. Behold what America has as President! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Actually the Federal Government should be run as a business. We would have a lot less financial trouble.
I agree on the part of him not being an all powerful CEO like in his family business but he is the Chief Executive Officer of the country but cannot usurp the board of directors. No, he can't confirm cabinet nominations but he definitely can fire them.
A child can't build a sand castle, but he can destroy one. Any old mule can kick down a barn, but it takes skills, knowledge, and cooperation to build one. Behold what America has as President! CM
Babbling again I see?
-
@C_M_ said:
A child can't build a sand castle, but he can destroy one. Any old mule can kick down a barn, but it takes skills, knowledge, and cooperation to build one. Behold what America has as President! CM
Now that the child and the mule are gone, we are back to building a nation again. Yes!
-
Was there just recently some information released that "the special investigator" actually found nothing against the president in the matter commonly labeled "Russiagate" ?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Was there just recently some information released that "the special investigator" actually found nothing against the president in the matter commonly labeled "Russiagate" ?No. The Washington Post last night reported that the special counsel's office last month told the president's legal team that the president, at least at that time, was a subject, not a target, of the special prosecutor's investigation.
There are three "levels" of involvement in a federal criminal investigation:
- A "witness" - someone who might be able to provide information relevant to a case, but whose conduct is not under criminal review.
- A "subject" - whose conduct is currently under criminal review, but against whom there currently is not sufficient evidence to file criminal charges.
- And a "target" - one against whom prosecutors are likely to file charges.
Given that Donald Trump is president, that he is a "subject" of Mueller's investigation MIGHT mean his conduct is under criminal review, but that insufficient evidence exists on which base criminal charges. BUT IT MIGHT ALSO MEAN Mueller intends to follow the current policy of the United States Department of Justice, which is that a sitting president cannot be indicted. If Mueller has decided to follow DOJ policy, President Trump would never be an investigation "target," but such a position would not at all clear the president from future legal (charges once he has left office) or political (impeachment) action.
The Post also reported that Mueller's team told the president's legal team Mueller will prepare a report on the president's actions in the case. Such a report could be quite damaging to the president, or it could exonerate him. Few objective observers believe it will exonerate him of all culpability.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Was there just recently some information released that "the special investigator" actually found nothing against the president in the matter commonly labeled "Russiagate" ?Yes that is what has happened. To date, they have found no evidence. @Bill_Coley and other liberals will try to twist it, but yes, that is exactly what has happened.
-
I'm not out to get Trump. If he is clear, so be it. CM
-
As for the women on Trump, your President is "in a pickle." CM
-
@C_M_ said:
As for the women on Trump, your President is "in a pickle." CMHe is also your president.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Was there just recently some information released that "the special investigator" actually found nothing against the president in the matter commonly labeled "Russiagate" ?Yes that is what has happened. To date, they have found no evidence. @Bill_Coley and other liberals will try to twist it, but yes, that is exactly what has happened.
You know that I use the phrase VERY sparingly, David, but on this matter, you're wrong.
To-date there has been NO reporting that characterized the evidence Mueller and his team believe they have found or not found. Neither have there been any disclosures from the Mueller team itself to that end other than the court filings that detailed indictments and plea deals. None of those court filings reported that the team has "to date, found no evidence." The truth is, we don't know what evidence Mueller and company have found.
Did YOU know about George Papadopolous - the guy whose barroom disclosures to an Australian ignited the FBI's criminal probe into the Trump campaign's relationship with Russia - BEFORE the day of his guilty plea? I didn't. I bet you didn't. Because we didn't know what evidence Mueller had or didn't have. And we still don't.
You've accused me of "twist(ing)" the truth, David. Prove it. Provide us with links that quote Mueller, one or more members of Mueller's team, or sources within the team as confirming your assertion that "to date, they have found no evidence."
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)