Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

Link 1 - Lists one or two firings for most presidents.  Gets to Trump and points out 8 firings with a further 7 resignations. 

Link 2 - Holy crap....did you even read that article or just the headline?  It completely shows just how bad Trump's turnover rate is compared to Obama.

Link 3 - Article focuses more on how long certain cabinet secretaries lasted before fired/resigned.

You should know by now that I will read your links and use them against you if you didn't.

Link 1 - "Most", and you said others didn't at all. Bigger Gov, more media attention, highly negative towards Trumps sphere, higher turnover rate?

Link 2 - A comparison to the previous opposition Prez. What's wrong with that?

Link 3 - Does this not matter?

You should know by now I've made it clear I'm not a Trump shill. My fault for trying to offer a more balanced viewpoint. My apologies...

I was replying to a point that said other administrations didn't have a revolving door, when apparently at least some did, depending on what level of turnover is deemed revolving door worthy.

Like I said above to ST, "You should know by now I've made it clear I'm not a Trump shill. My fault for trying to offer a more balanced viewpoint. My apologies..."

You're back pedaling. 

On to other topics....Trump told border patrol agents to break immigration law last Friday (4/6/19) and to lie to the judges about immigration information.  Patrol agent supervision advised those agents they would still be held accountable to the law if they violated it.  Today, Trump said he would pardon any border patrol agents and the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner if they violated the law as he suggested they do.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States of America just advised agents to violate the Constitution and would pardon them if they were indicted on said violations. This should concern us all.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Almost like being tough with high standards and holding people accountable or else, is necessary in those positions.

So then why does his administration have revolving door employment when other administrations did not?

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/donald-trump-isnt-the-only-president-who-loves-firing-people.html/

https://www.elitedaily.com/p/trumps-vs-obamas-resignation-rates-are-truly-mindblowing-8440066

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/04/donald-trumps-white-house-turnover-context/

Looks like Trump isn't alone when it comes to firing people either.

Link 1 - Lists one or two firings for most presidents.  Gets to Trump and points out 8 firings with a further 7 resignations. 

Link 2 - Holy crap....did you even read that article or just the headline?  It completely shows just how bad Trump's turnover rate is compared to Obama.

Link 3 - Article focuses more on how long certain cabinet secretaries lasted before fired/resigned.

You should know by now that I will read your links and use them against you if you didn't.

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Link 1 - "Most", and you said others didn't at all. Bigger Gov, more media attention, highly negative towards Trumps sphere, higher turnover rate?

Link 2 - A comparison to the previous opposition Prez. What's wrong with that?

Link 3 - Does this not matter?

You should know by now I've made it clear I'm not a Trump shill. My fault for trying to offer a more balanced viewpoint. My apologies...

I was replying to a point that said other administrations didn't have a revolving door, when apparently at least some did, depending on what level of turnover is deemed revolving door worthy.

Like I said above to ST, "You should know by now I've made it clear I'm not a Trump shill. My fault for trying to offer a more balanced viewpoint. My apologies..."

You're back pedaling. 

That would be the opposite of forward pedaling, which is the direction I was moving in, here in upsidownville.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

So then why does his administration have revolving door employment when other administrations did not?

SpokenTruth said:

Link 1 - Lists one or two firings for most presidents.  Gets to Trump and points out 8 firings with a further 7 resignations. 

Link 2 - Holy crap....did you even read that article or just the headline?  It completely shows just how bad Trump's turnover rate is compared to Obama.

Link 3 - Article focuses more on how long certain cabinet secretaries lasted before fired/resigned.

You should know by now that I will read your links and use them against you if you didn't.

SpokenTruth said:

You're back pedaling. 

That would be the opposite of forward pedaling, which is the direction I was moving in, here in upsidownville.

That's because you two speak past each other, not with each other.

You're interpreting his rotating door employment as if no other president has ever fired someone, and pointing out that they do. But SpokenTruth is (like a couple others) just pointing out that it's not that other presidents didn't fire anybody, but didn't have nearly such a high turnover, which you seemingly interpret as delusion that they didn't fire anybody, and the circle starts anew.

Nobody is denying that former presidents also fired staff or had staff resigning. But point out any who did fire so many or had so many resigning on him in such a short amount of time, otherwise your argument falls flat.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
EricHiggin said:

That would be the opposite of forward pedaling, which is the direction I was moving in, here in upsidownville.

That's because you two speak past each other, not with each other.

You're interpreting his rotating door employment as if no other president has ever fired someone, and pointing out that they do. But SpokenTruth is (like a couple others) just pointing out that it's not that other presidents didn't fire anybody, but didn't have nearly such a high turnover, which you seemingly interpret as delusion that they didn't fire anybody, and the circle starts anew.

Nobody is denying that former presidents also fired staff or had staff resigning. But point out any who did fire so many or had so many resigning on him in such a short amount of time, otherwise your argument falls flat.

They said, "So then why does his administration have revolving door employment when other administrations did not?" Are you saying the threshold for too much turnover is literally tied to Trump? Show me where I said anything close to previous Presidents didn't fire anybody. My point with the links was to specifically show that previous Presidents did in fact do their fair share of firing. Trump firing more in a shorter amount of time doesn't mean other administrations didn't have what you would consider rotating doors at that point in time. That's like asking why does the majority of the population think the world is round when previous generations knew it was flat? I dunno, maybe because things changed between then and now and have to be taken into account.

Nobody seems to be care about that though. Saying Jeff has fired a tonne from his many giant warehouses but grandpa fired way less from the small original back in the day, doesn't make any sense if the amount of employees isn't equal and society has changed. More complexity leads to more problems. Just like all of Jeff's msm and social media problems that his grandpa didn't have. When he grew up he was just another small business and those things didn't even exist.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 13 April 2019

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

That's because you two speak past each other, not with each other.

You're interpreting his rotating door employment as if no other president has ever fired someone, and pointing out that they do. But SpokenTruth is (like a couple others) just pointing out that it's not that other presidents didn't fire anybody, but didn't have nearly such a high turnover, which you seemingly interpret as delusion that they didn't fire anybody, and the circle starts anew.

Nobody is denying that former presidents also fired staff or had staff resigning. But point out any who did fire so many or had so many resigning on him in such a short amount of time, otherwise your argument falls flat.

They said, "So then why does his administration have revolving door employment when other administrations did not?" Are you saying the threshold for too much turnover is literally tied to Trump? Show me where I said anything close to previous Presidents didn't fire anybody. My point with the links was to specifically show that previous Presidents did in fact do their fair share of firing. Trump firing more in a shorter amount of time doesn't mean other administrations didn't have what you would consider rotating doors at that point in time. That's like asking why does the majority of the population think the world is round when previous generations knew it was flat? I dunno, maybe because things changed between then and now and have to be taken into account.

Nobody seems to be care about that though. Saying Jeff has fired a tonne from his many giant warehouses but grandpa fired way less from the small original back in the day, doesn't make any sense if the amount of employees isn't equal and society has changed. More complexity leads to more problems. Just like all of Jeff's msm and social media problems that his grandpa didn't have. When he grew up he was just another small business and those things didn't even exist.

I think the obvious way to interpret Trump having 'revolving door employment' is that the turnover is high relative to the norm of previous Presidents - it's really not that difficult...



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

That's because you two speak past each other, not with each other.

You're interpreting his rotating door employment as if no other president has ever fired someone, and pointing out that they do. But SpokenTruth is (like a couple others) just pointing out that it's not that other presidents didn't fire anybody, but didn't have nearly such a high turnover, which you seemingly interpret as delusion that they didn't fire anybody, and the circle starts anew.

Nobody is denying that former presidents also fired staff or had staff resigning. But point out any who did fire so many or had so many resigning on him in such a short amount of time, otherwise your argument falls flat.

They said, "So then why does his administration have revolving door employment when other administrations did not?" Are you saying the threshold for too much turnover is literally tied to Trump? Show me where I said anything close to previous Presidents didn't fire anybody. My point with the links was to specifically show that previous Presidents did in fact do their fair share of firing. Trump firing more in a shorter amount of time doesn't mean other administrations didn't have what you would consider rotating doors at that point in time. That's like asking why does the majority of the population think the world is round when previous generations knew it was flat? I dunno, maybe because things changed between then and now and have to be taken into account.

Nobody seems to be care about that though. Saying Jeff has fired a tonne from his many giant warehouses but grandpa fired way less from the small original back in the day, doesn't make any sense if the amount of employees isn't equal and society has changed. More complexity leads to more problems. Just like all of Jeff's msm and social media problems that his grandpa didn't have. When he grew up he was just another small business and those things didn't even exist.

Seriously, you're missing all context here.

Again, nobody is saying that other presidents didn't have sometimes high turnovers. But as far as I know, none of them even came close to Trump's turnover rates. That's the context you seem to miss all the time, that Trumps turnover is very high when compared to other presidents in the past.

Your entire last segment just highlights that you missed the entire context. You compare to corporations and say that there haven't been many firings in the white house compared to that. We compare apples to apples, meaning US presidents from the past to Trump, not some random bad corporation boss to Trump in office as US president.



Biggerboat1 said:
EricHiggin said:

They said, "So then why does his administration have revolving door employment when other administrations did not?" Are you saying the threshold for too much turnover is literally tied to Trump? Show me where I said anything close to previous Presidents didn't fire anybody. My point with the links was to specifically show that previous Presidents did in fact do their fair share of firing. Trump firing more in a shorter amount of time doesn't mean other administrations didn't have what you would consider rotating doors at that point in time. That's like asking why does the majority of the population think the world is round when previous generations knew it was flat? I dunno, maybe because things changed between then and now and have to be taken into account.

Nobody seems to be care about that though. Saying Jeff has fired a tonne from his many giant warehouses but grandpa fired way less from the small original back in the day, doesn't make any sense if the amount of employees isn't equal and society has changed. More complexity leads to more problems. Just like all of Jeff's msm and social media problems that his grandpa didn't have. When he grew up he was just another small business and those things didn't even exist.

I think the obvious way to interpret Trump having 'revolving door employment' is that the turnover is high relative to the norm of previous Presidents - it's really not that difficult...

Neither is pissing into the wind, but simply taking a few evident things into account would quickly reveal, aimlessly doing just that would be quite foolish.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
EricHiggin said:

They said, "So then why does his administration have revolving door employment when other administrations did not?" Are you saying the threshold for too much turnover is literally tied to Trump? Show me where I said anything close to previous Presidents didn't fire anybody. My point with the links was to specifically show that previous Presidents did in fact do their fair share of firing. Trump firing more in a shorter amount of time doesn't mean other administrations didn't have what you would consider rotating doors at that point in time. That's like asking why does the majority of the population think the world is round when previous generations knew it was flat? I dunno, maybe because things changed between then and now and have to be taken into account.

Nobody seems to be care about that though. Saying Jeff has fired a tonne from his many giant warehouses but grandpa fired way less from the small original back in the day, doesn't make any sense if the amount of employees isn't equal and society has changed. More complexity leads to more problems. Just like all of Jeff's msm and social media problems that his grandpa didn't have. When he grew up he was just another small business and those things didn't even exist.

Seriously, you're missing all context here.

Again, nobody is saying that other presidents didn't have sometimes high turnovers. But as far as I know, none of them even came close to Trump's turnover rates. That's the context you seem to miss all the time, that Trumps turnover is very high when compared to other presidents in the past.

Your entire last segment just highlights that you missed the entire context. You compare to corporations and say that there haven't been many firings in the white house compared to that. We compare apples to apples, meaning US presidents from the past to Trump, not some random bad corporation boss to Trump in office as US president.

If I'm missing something it's not the expressed context. Some are. 

Apples to apples? You missed the point. How large was the Gov when it started compared to now? Much bigger Gov, in a time of promoted victimhood and (legal) retaliation, more problems? How much of an issue was the media for the Gov when it started compared to now? Much more (opinionated) media, instantly broadcasting worldwide, more problems? 

The climate is much worse today then it's ever been, did you know that? - Sure, everyone knows that, but what's your point? - Don't you want to know why it's changing and what's causing it? - Why would you ask that? That wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison anymore now then would it?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
Biggerboat1 said:

I think the obvious way to interpret Trump having 'revolving door employment' is that the turnover is high relative to the norm of previous Presidents - it's really not that difficult...

Neither is pissing into the wind, but simply taking a few evident things into account would quickly reveal, aimlessly doing just that would be quite foolish.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Seriously, you're missing all context here.

Again, nobody is saying that other presidents didn't have sometimes high turnovers. But as far as I know, none of them even came close to Trump's turnover rates. That's the context you seem to miss all the time, that Trumps turnover is very high when compared to other presidents in the past.

Your entire last segment just highlights that you missed the entire context. You compare to corporations and say that there haven't been many firings in the white house compared to that. We compare apples to apples, meaning US presidents from the past to Trump, not some random bad corporation boss to Trump in office as US president.

If I'm missing something it's not the expressed context. Some are. 

Apples to apples? You missed the point. How large was the Gov when it started compared to now? Much bigger Gov, in a time of promoted victimhood and (legal) retaliation, more problems? How much of an issue was the media for the Gov when it started compared to now? Much more (opinionated) media, instantly broadcasting worldwide, more problems? 

The climate is much worse today then it's ever been, did you know that? - Sure, everyone knows that, but what's your point? - Don't you want to know why it's changing and what's causing it? - Why would you ask that? That wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison anymore now then would it?

Bold 1 :

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here to be honest... You're agreeing that interpreting the revolving door comment isn't difficult (yet you failed to do so), and neither is pissing into the wind... Why is it foolish to note that Trump's staff turnover is extremely high in comparison to previous Presidents? Do you have a better comparison?

Bold 2 : 

So then why not just look at recent Presidents? The gulf is still there... So your point is?

And, yes, the climate is terrible at the moment, you don't think a big part of that is due to Trump's own behaviour? Part of being an effective President is knowing how to present yourself and communicate in a way which results in the best perception... Trump deliberately goes out of his way to be divisive, so pretending that he's some innocent bistander is ridiculous!

Let's get specific, in your opinion - what percentage of the high turnover would you say is Trump's fault?



SpokenTruth said:

On to other topics....Trump told border patrol agents to break immigration law last Friday (4/6/19) and to lie to the judges about immigration information.  Patrol agent supervision advised those agents they would still be held accountable to the law if they violated it.  Today, Trump said he would pardon any border patrol agents and the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner if they violated the law as he suggested they do.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States of America just advised agents to violate the Constitution and would pardon them if they were indicted on said violations. This should concern us all.

I personally cannot wait if Trump tries to pull that move.  I do not believe Trump understands that if he were to cross the line and lose the support of the GOP, all hell would break loose.  Crossing the line of telling and having employees break the law and ignore the constitution probably would be where the GOP would leave him in huge droves.  

On a second note, I wonder if Munchin is willing to go to jail for Trump.  At some point, he will have to release Trump tax return to congress and if he doesn't he gets a nice fine and five years in Jail.  I wonder if Trump will pardon him as well because that would be glorious.  You really could not write this stuff up.



Biggerboat1 said:

It almost makes me wonder whether you're actually just a very discreet troll - who keeps it toned down enough to stay under the radar.

At some point in time, everyone comes to the same conclusions.  As you continue to argue points you will find that no matter the evidence presented, there are some people who just love to pull peoples chain.