-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
(Deep breath)
Can anyone tell me why the current POTUS can not possibly employ anyone in position of power who wants to stay and do the job?
Or am I missing something?
nobody likes having an irrational fool as a boss, who will criticise them in public if they disagree with him in any way, and blame everyone but himself for things going wrong.
when you take into account that it is largely extremely committed people we are talking about (to have got that far), and largely their dream jobs that they are walking away from - it paints a pretty ugly picture.
the nature of the jobs does mean that there will always be someone less able and experienced but plenty ambitious further down willing to take it on. and that's a concern - anyone willing to just toe the trump line rather than do the job to the best of their ability will be more successful, but sycophants don't make for a great organisation.Well that would be the view of someone who doesnt like Trump no matter what.
I think it more likely that every president gets through staff at a rate of knots, but it is never reported as breathlessly by the media. Do any of us actually know how high the turnover under Obama and Bush was? I didnt . Was never really talked about, because the media didnt make a huge fuss. Trump however... different story, now every single resignation is poured over and amplified. Who actually cares? I am sure his supporters dont and I am sure his detractors do, not because they actually care, but because it gives them a chance to paint Trump as a horrible perspon.well that would be the attitude of someone who will defend trump no matter what... you explicitly state that you don't know the turnover rate of others, but you assume that they had the same issue - because your mind is already made up.
when someone like mattis resigns, and writes a letter that is a thinly veiled criticism of trump alienating their allies, and mcgurk goes too, it is news.
trump is way out on his own in terms of publicly slagging people off. typically those are his own words, that he chooses to tweet - nothing to do with the 'evil fake news media' at all. no misquotes, nothing out of context. all him.I have criticised Trump, you have never praised him. So your comparison is faulty from the start.
And I said I DIDNT know the turnover rate. I know a lot more now because I looked into it and read some info on it. Obama got through a lot of staff, so did Bush, seems to be part of the territory. And if the sole reason you think the media has raised the profile of these departures is because of supposed thinly veiled criticism.. I have a bridge to sell you.You and many others have just been played by the MSM yet again.
not really though, the statement from mattis is his own. it's got nothing to do with the media, just as trump's idiotic tweets have nothing to do with the media.
Ever read statements form departing people under Obama? Or are you just assuming they didnt make any?
feel free to post them to in support of your whatabouttery.
You have no idea what that phrase even means do you.....
I know it is a left wing nightmare to actually have 2 things involved in a comparison, but at least try.as i said, feel free to post those statements if you want to talk about them.
or, if you want to talk about mattis and mcgurk, then why don't you actually talk about them? you know, instead of excuses and talking about obama and talking around them and calling other people stupid and blaming the media and attacking that it has been brought up at all. -
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
(Deep breath)
Can anyone tell me why the current POTUS can not possibly employ anyone in position of power who wants to stay and do the job?
Or am I missing something?
nobody likes having an irrational fool as a boss, who will criticise them in public if they disagree with him in any way, and blame everyone but himself for things going wrong.
when you take into account that it is largely extremely committed people we are talking about (to have got that far), and largely their dream jobs that they are walking away from - it paints a pretty ugly picture.
the nature of the jobs does mean that there will always be someone less able and experienced but plenty ambitious further down willing to take it on. and that's a concern - anyone willing to just toe the trump line rather than do the job to the best of their ability will be more successful, but sycophants don't make for a great organisation.Well that would be the view of someone who doesnt like Trump no matter what.
I think it more likely that every president gets through staff at a rate of knots, but it is never reported as breathlessly by the media. Do any of us actually know how high the turnover under Obama and Bush was? I didnt . Was never really talked about, because the media didnt make a huge fuss. Trump however... different story, now every single resignation is poured over and amplified. Who actually cares? I am sure his supporters dont and I am sure his detractors do, not because they actually care, but because it gives them a chance to paint Trump as a horrible perspon.well that would be the attitude of someone who will defend trump no matter what... you explicitly state that you don't know the turnover rate of others, but you assume that they had the same issue - because your mind is already made up.
when someone like mattis resigns, and writes a letter that is a thinly veiled criticism of trump alienating their allies, and mcgurk goes too, it is news.
trump is way out on his own in terms of publicly slagging people off. typically those are his own words, that he chooses to tweet - nothing to do with the 'evil fake news media' at all. no misquotes, nothing out of context. all him.I have criticised Trump, you have never praised him. So your comparison is faulty from the start.
And I said I DIDNT know the turnover rate. I know a lot more now because I looked into it and read some info on it. Obama got through a lot of staff, so did Bush, seems to be part of the territory. And if the sole reason you think the media has raised the profile of these departures is because of supposed thinly veiled criticism.. I have a bridge to sell you.You and many others have just been played by the MSM yet again.
not really though, the statement from mattis is his own. it's got nothing to do with the media, just as trump's idiotic tweets have nothing to do with the media.
Ever read statements form departing people under Obama? Or are you just assuming they didnt make any?
In the history of TSF I doubt there has been a single other instance in which a pres losing a SoD had been brought up or mentioned. As mentioned, Obama had 4, 3 of whom slagged him off.
Multiple SoD’s seem to be the norm with only a few presidents having just the one, so the retirement or resignation of one is not exactly a rare occurrence. I guess the issues here are the manner of Mattis’ resignation and separately the reporting of the resignation.
To be fair to Obama, of his four, he retained the first from Bush rather than push his own nominee and my understanding is that he retired rather than resigned, though happy to be proved wrong. I haven’t heard about the criticism and would be interested in the detail. Mattis’ criticism and resignation seems to me to be precipitated by the Syria withdrawal, a fundamental difference of opinion. That to me that is a bit strange in itself as you’d think such a fundamental difference of opinion between an appointed SoD and POTUS would have been ironed out before or perhaps would have precluded the appointment?
As to the reporting of the resignation this is now par for the course and whilst I agree that Trump comes under more scrutiny than his predecessors, there is an element of live by the sword, due by the sword in this.
-
Pretty stoked to see Rand Paul getting into the Festivus spirit
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
Pretty stoked to see Rand Paul getting into the Festivus spirit
Trump should dump Pence from his ticket and select Rand as is running mate (even if that risks the Kentucky senate seat). Rand is his best advocate, gives him superb cover on the tv talkers where he seems to be the only one talking up Trump’s America First / anti-Imperialist agenda. These are high stakes positions, and Pence is pretty much useless on them all.
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
(Deep breath)
Can anyone tell me why the current POTUS can not possibly employ anyone in position of power who wants to stay and do the job?
Or am I missing something?
nobody likes having an irrational fool as a boss, who will criticise them in public if they disagree with him in any way, and blame everyone but himself for things going wrong.
when you take into account that it is largely extremely committed people we are talking about (to have got that far), and largely their dream jobs that they are walking away from - it paints a pretty ugly picture.
the nature of the jobs does mean that there will always be someone less able and experienced but plenty ambitious further down willing to take it on. and that's a concern - anyone willing to just toe the trump line rather than do the job to the best of their ability will be more successful, but sycophants don't make for a great organisation.Well that would be the view of someone who doesnt like Trump no matter what.
I think it more likely that every president gets through staff at a rate of knots, but it is never reported as breathlessly by the media. Do any of us actually know how high the turnover under Obama and Bush was? I didnt . Was never really talked about, because the media didnt make a huge fuss. Trump however... different story, now every single resignation is poured over and amplified. Who actually cares? I am sure his supporters dont and I am sure his detractors do, not because they actually care, but because it gives them a chance to paint Trump as a horrible perspon.well that would be the attitude of someone who will defend trump no matter what... you explicitly state that you don't know the turnover rate of others, but you assume that they had the same issue - because your mind is already made up.
when someone like mattis resigns, and writes a letter that is a thinly veiled criticism of trump alienating their allies, and mcgurk goes too, it is news.
trump is way out on his own in terms of publicly slagging people off. typically those are his own words, that he chooses to tweet - nothing to do with the 'evil fake news media' at all. no misquotes, nothing out of context. all him.I have criticised Trump, you have never praised him. So your comparison is faulty from the start.
And I said I DIDNT know the turnover rate. I know a lot more now because I looked into it and read some info on it. Obama got through a lot of staff, so did Bush, seems to be part of the territory. And if the sole reason you think the media has raised the profile of these departures is because of supposed thinly veiled criticism.. I have a bridge to sell you.You and many others have just been played by the MSM yet again.
not really though, the statement from mattis is his own. it's got nothing to do with the media, just as trump's idiotic tweets have nothing to do with the media.
Ever read statements form departing people under Obama? Or are you just assuming they didnt make any?
In the history of TSF I doubt there has been a single other instance in which a pres losing a SoD had been brought up or mentioned. As mentioned, Obama had 4, 3 of whom slagged him off.
Multiple SoD’s seem to be the norm with only a few presidents having just the one, so the retirement or resignation of one is not exactly a rare occurrence. I guess the issues here are the manner of Mattis’ resignation and separately the reporting of the resignation.
To be fair to Obama, of his four, he retained the first from Bush rather than push his own nominee and my understanding is that he retired rather than resigned, though happy to be proved wrong. I haven’t heard about the criticism and would be interested in the detail. Mattis’ criticism and resignation seems to me to be precipitated by the Syria withdrawal, a fundamental difference of opinion. That to me that is a bit strange in itself as you’d think such a fundamental difference of opinion between an appointed SoD and POTUS would have been ironed out before or perhaps would have precluded the appointment?
As to the reporting of the resignation this is now par for the course and whilst I agree that Trump comes under more scrutiny than his predecessors, there is an element of live by the sword, due by the sword in this.
Heaps online if you want to look:
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/3/obama-military-strategy-blasted-by-robert-gates-le/
Can't recall a TSF thread about any of these 3. No comments about an incompetent idiot.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
(Deep breath)
Can anyone tell me why the current POTUS can not possibly employ anyone in position of power who wants to stay and do the job?
Or am I missing something?
nobody likes having an irrational fool as a boss, who will criticise them in public if they disagree with him in any way, and blame everyone but himself for things going wrong.
when you take into account that it is largely extremely committed people we are talking about (to have got that far), and largely their dream jobs that they are walking away from - it paints a pretty ugly picture.
the nature of the jobs does mean that there will always be someone less able and experienced but plenty ambitious further down willing to take it on. and that's a concern - anyone willing to just toe the trump line rather than do the job to the best of their ability will be more successful, but sycophants don't make for a great organisation.Well that would be the view of someone who doesnt like Trump no matter what.
I think it more likely that every president gets through staff at a rate of knots, but it is never reported as breathlessly by the media. Do any of us actually know how high the turnover under Obama and Bush was? I didnt . Was never really talked about, because the media didnt make a huge fuss. Trump however... different story, now every single resignation is poured over and amplified. Who actually cares? I am sure his supporters dont and I am sure his detractors do, not because they actually care, but because it gives them a chance to paint Trump as a horrible perspon.well that would be the attitude of someone who will defend trump no matter what... you explicitly state that you don't know the turnover rate of others, but you assume that they had the same issue - because your mind is already made up.
when someone like mattis resigns, and writes a letter that is a thinly veiled criticism of trump alienating their allies, and mcgurk goes too, it is news.
trump is way out on his own in terms of publicly slagging people off. typically those are his own words, that he chooses to tweet - nothing to do with the 'evil fake news media' at all. no misquotes, nothing out of context. all him.I have criticised Trump, you have never praised him. So your comparison is faulty from the start.
And I said I DIDNT know the turnover rate. I know a lot more now because I looked into it and read some info on it. Obama got through a lot of staff, so did Bush, seems to be part of the territory. And if the sole reason you think the media has raised the profile of these departures is because of supposed thinly veiled criticism.. I have a bridge to sell you.You and many others have just been played by the MSM yet again.
not really though, the statement from mattis is his own. it's got nothing to do with the media, just as trump's idiotic tweets have nothing to do with the media.
Ever read statements form departing people under Obama? Or are you just assuming they didnt make any?
feel free to post them to in support of your whatabouttery.
You have no idea what that phrase even means do you.....
I know it is a left wing nightmare to actually have 2 things involved in a comparison, but at least try.as i said, feel free to post those statements if you want to talk about them.
or, if you want to talk about mattis and mcgurk, then why don't you actually talk about them? you know, instead of excuses and talking about obama and talking around them and calling other people stupid and blaming the media and attacking that it has been brought up at all.Why would I.. it is the fact they criticised and you didnt know, and yet go full bombastic mode about Trump losing one that is my point. All because of media manipulation IMO
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Thanks RS, though I'm not sure there's anything there quite as negative as Mattis comments and not much outside of memoirs. However you are right , the coverage has been significantly higher. And no, no thread on TSF on it, but then again I can't remember much in the way of political discussion on here prior to Trump either. Both he and his style of politics have proven polarising.
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel Thanks RS, though I'm not sure there's anything there quite as negative as Mattis comments and not much outside of memoirs. However you are right , the coverage has been significantly higher. And no, no thread on TSF on it, but then again I can't remember much in the way of political discussion on here prior to Trump either. Both he and his style of politics have proven polarising.
Really? With respect, did you actually read the link? What about Hagel's comments?
Seriously mate, there have always been political discussions here, some of them very heated. The 2008 election thread might not have matched the Trump thread, but it was still significant.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel Thanks RS, though I'm not sure there's anything there quite as negative as Mattis comments and not much outside of memoirs. However you are right , the coverage has been significantly higher. And no, no thread on TSF on it, but then again I can't remember much in the way of political discussion on here prior to Trump either. Both he and his style of politics have proven polarising.
Really? With respect, did you actually read the link? What about Hagel's comments?
Seriously mate, there have always been political discussions here, some of them very heated. The 2008 election thread might not have matched the Trump thread, but it was still significant.
I did read the link and where I think the difference is that most of the criticisms were not, IMO, as fundamental as that of Mattis - ie suggesting that he and Trump were simply not aligned.
I really can't recall much in the way of politics previously, perhaps I was simply not interested/have an opinion. For instance I don't really follow the Aus and NZ politics threads.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Trump derangement syndrome
Going round in Trump/Obama/Clinton garb is just sad, but that guy's reaction was incredibly disturbing. He was screaming like a toddler who didn't get the cookie he wanted. What a ginger nutcase.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Trump derangement syndrome
-
This is a very good article on Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria and his reticence to accept their counsel on maintaining military presence generally.
Trump Scores, Breaks Generals’ 50-Year War Record
The mainstream media has attacked President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria as impulsive, blindsiding his own national security team. But detailed, published accounts of the policy process over the course of the year tell a very different story. They show that senior national security officials and self-interested institutions have been playing a complicated political game for months aimed at keeping Trump from wavering on our indefinite presence on the ground in Syria.
The entire episode thus represents a new variant of a familiar pattern dating back to Vietnam in which national security advisors put pressure on reluctant presidents to go along with existing or proposed military deployments in a war zone. The difference here is that Trump, by publicly choosing a different policy, has blown up their transparent schemes and offered the country a new course, one that does not involve a permanent war state.
-
@antipodean
Based on Lindsay Graham’s comments on CNN , the neocons, AIPAC, the warmongers and the imperialists are waging a full-court press on Trump to get him to change his mind.Trump getting an anti-imperialist Sec. of Defense confirmed through the Senate will be very difficult.
Thank God for Trump's stubbornness.
-
@antipodean it's horrible, isn't it. Imagine that as an attack ad.
-
@Tim said in US Politics:
@antipodean it's horrible, isn't it. Imagine that as an attack ad.
I understand there are quite a lot of examples..if he's their front runner the Dems are well and truly screwed
-
@Tim what's his relationship to the wee girl?
If he knows her and the family there's nothing wrong with it, except the sensational camera zooming.
I don't know the back story but it's a bit dramatic to see anything wrong in that clip in my opinion.
Or am I supposed to be outraged due to ages, genders and races involved in some pretty normal human interaction
US Politics