A high turnover rate indicates incompetence in management. Perhaps you can make an argument that a high turnover rate is somehow beneficial and reflects competency?

A high turnover rate indicates incompetence in management. Perhaps you can make an argument that a high turnover rate is somehow beneficial and reflects competency?

You believe the president of the US is like a manager, and the whitehouse like a restaurant?

Let’s see what Democrats are saying about this.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, lamented that “we’re now headed for our fourth national security adviser in less than three years.”

Boy, that sounds familiar.

Actions and behavior. — NOS4A2

Not including speech, I presume.

Oh dear. It looks like the disgraced Andrew McCabe is facing prosecution. This is one of the people anti-trump conspiracy theorists had unmitigated faith in.

Justice Department nears prosecution of ex-FBI official McCabe: sources

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-mccabe/justice-department-nears-prosecution-of-ex-fbi-official-mccabe-sources-idUSKCN1VX2KB

Exactly. And the reason for that is that there appears a divide between people who think the end justifies the means and those who don't. And in the US that seems to follow party lines to an important extent.

But we'll see because I'm not offering a theory here just gut feelings.

You believe the president of the US is like a manager, and the whitehouse like a restaurant? — NOS4A2

Exactly, and it currently serves crappy unhealthy fast food...

What responsibility do you think Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in this country?

Play the radio, make sure the television - excuse me - make sure you have the record player on at night.

Joe Biden, 2020.

And then there was Andrew Yang's $120,000 free giveaway to random American families.

But the others did well.

If we were to compare Trump to any of the myriad people who spend their conscious hours opposing him, nine times out of ten you’d be comparing the exception to the mean, the legendary to the forgettable, the trophy case of history to its proverbial dustbin.

But we should compare them nonetheless, because one of them lives and is sometimes employed to disparage the other, while the other is working to make well on his promises and do right by his people—and making history while doing so.

That’s what makes anti-Trumpism so painfully hilarious, but at the same time ironic and pitiful. With the amount of scorn, bullying and hatred emanating from the anti-Trump base, one might expect that they were in some way or another better than the President. But given the contrast between their own lives and the life of the man they hate, their criticisms resemble less and less legitimate scrutiny and more and more the symptoms of an inferiority complex.

Even so they have taken it upon themselves to malign the President in nearly every breath, using terms of ridicule and hatred, all of which occurs from a very, very safe distance. This is easy enough to do for someone who will never attain the vast heights of Donald Trump, who will never be in the same position, who will never have the same amount to lose, and easiest of all, will never be in the same vicinity as the very target of their hatred.

It makes one wonder: given the chance for a face-to-face, could they really stand up to the man they vehemently oppose instead of continually making a show of it to their friends and online? Perhaps.

Even better, what I wouldn’t give to see a vehement anti-Trumper in the President’s position, under the same level of scrutiny. He would surely adopt the public/private view approach of PR politics, where every speech, every public appearance, every robotic delivery is formulated to placate and flatter the masses rather than engage with them.

Alas, I will never get such satisfaction. But there is one trifling thing I can always be certain of when listening to an anti-Trumper: Donald Trump is greater than them.

If we were to compare Trump to any of the myriad people who spend their conscious hours opposing him, nine times out of ten you’d be comparing the exception to the mean, the legendary to the forgettable, the trophy case of history to its proverbial dustbin. — NOS4A2

We're off to a good start here.

Alas, I will never get such satisfaction. But there is one trifling thing I can always be certain of when listening to an anti-Trumper: Donald Trump is greater than them. — NOS4A2

Ah yes, true love. So nice to see someone expressing their romantic feelings without fear of ridicule and judgement. Regrettably, unless you kinda look like Ivanka Trump, I think your love shall remain unrequited.

He would surely adopt the public/private view approach of PR politics, where every speech, every public appearance, every robotic delivery is formulated to placate and flatter the masses rather than engage with them. — NOS4A2

This is true for Trump except that it’s designed specifically for his base rather than ‘the masses’ in general.

I only recently discovered that he got rid of Sarah Sanders because he wants to talk directly to the press (usually on the white house lawn with a helicopter in the background.) What's that about?

I only recently discovered that he got rid of Sarah Sanders because he wants to talk directly to the press (usually on the white house lawn with a helicopter in the background.) What's that about? — frank

It's about dismantling another political institution - White House press briefings. Dismantling political institutions is one of the core goals of the ideological leaders behind this administration (not necessarily including Trump himself).

Yeah that’s quite the change, a welcome one in my opinion. The president has rarely been so accessible.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It's about dismantling another political institution - White House press briefings. — Echarmion

If previous presidents had the internet as a tool for informing the public, would they have used it? What's the role of the press today?

I can't tolerate CNN or MSNBC these days: too blatantly biased.

If previous presidents had the internet as a tool for informing the public, would they have used it? What's the role of the press today? — frank

The internet is different from a press briefing though. You cannot put someone on the spot and force them to answer. Professional journalists can be more dangerous to a politician than random Twitter users.

It's also not like previous presidents did not use the internet. Obama used Twitter. I am sure the Bush administration released information online. What's different is not the usage of the medium, but the message being sent.

The history of white house press coverage shows that americans do become uneasy if coverage appears to be blocked.

But what did we get from Sarah Sanders other than the bullshit she chose to present?

We each have to do a little deduction informed by our own psycho-social outlook.

Yeah, a real legend. They should carve his head on Mount Rushmore. I loved that thing he did with splitting children away from their parents and caging them. My hero.

But what did we get from Sarah Sanders other than the bullshit she chose to present? — frank

Nothing of much value, I'd agree. But at least someone had to stand there and tell lies, knowing they were telling lies, by looking people in the eye.

Trumps impromptu "briefings" have a very different dynamic. One where Trump controls the setting. He can begin and end them at will without it seeming out of place. This suggests a different kind of stance on the accountability of government.

Those are little things, and it's easy to dismiss all these concerns as petty. I believe, however, that institutions are curcially important to a democracy. Proper procedure, political correctness, a certain decorum keep the system from slipping towards autocracy.

Yeah, a real legend. They should carve his head on Mount Rushmore. I loved that thing he did with splitting children away from their parents and caging them. My hero.

I wonder if you loved that he ended that loophole by executive order. Your hero indeed.

scorn, bullying and hatred — NOS4A2

The strangest choice of words considering who we're talking about. It's as if it's projection.

For the rest, your love note was tldr as I got nauseous.

I wonder if you loved that he ended that loophole by executive order. Your hero indeed. — NOS4A2

There was no loophole. Children were separated from their guardians before the Trump administration when there was doubt about their familial relationship. It was a rare occurrence. Under Trump it became policy to criminally prosecute every illegal entry (instead of the administrative route with ICE). Detention was only possible for adults. So minors were separated in each and every case. The crime was, though, that no one in his administration had in place a process of reuniting minors with their parents after proceedings had ended.

Not only is Trump responsible for his administration's policies, such an extreme change must have been made at the highest level and will have included him. So his executive order didn't come until after the very public outcry of his botched policy that he initiated.

Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her “credible.” But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. “‘We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,’” Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez’s lawyers, recalled the agents saying. “It was almost a little apologetic.”

Oh my fucking god

We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

There was no loophole. Children were separated from their guardians before the Trump administration when there was doubt about their familial relationship. It was a rare occurrence. Under Trump it became policy to criminally prosecute every illegal entry (instead of the administrative route with ICE). Detention was only possible for adults. So minors were separated in each and every case. The crime was, though, that no one in his administration had in place a process of reuniting minors with their parents after proceedings had ended.

Not only is Trump responsible for his administration's policies, such an extreme change must have been made at the highest level and will have included him. So his executive order didn't come until after the very public outcry of his botched policy that he initiated.

Trump started the zero-tolerance policy. That means adults go to jail for breaking the laws of the country. The children were cared for by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in facilities built during the Obama administration, while their “parents” served their time and awaited processing. Children cannot be held in prison. If parents don’t want to be separated from their children they should not commit crimes.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Your defense of the indefensible is long past tedious.

What law would that be?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

That’s right, no crimes. Your silly lies are born of propaganda and group think. Back to the cliff, lemming.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.