I'm saying if you didn't think about the fact that the wind was blowing, and in what direction, pissing into the wind would get you covered in urine. Who wouldn't take the wind and it's direction into account? Who's mindlessly ok with drenching themselves in piss? Just looking at Trumps turnover rate vs other Presidents doesn't take anything else into account, and to assume Trump is mindlessly hiring and firing people just to pass the time would be foolish.
Based on your apples to apples argument, all people would have to argue climate change is a difference in temperature, that's it. No CO2 levels, no ocean levels, just temperature. Who's going to agree climate change is definitely a problem if you can't use causes to back it up? Who's going to be able to agree why Trump is firing so many people if all we can look at is the turnover rate and that's it?
The same if not a somewhat lesser percentage than previous administrations due to the extra complexity that exists today.
I think it would help everyone if you'd stop muddying the waters with endless half-baked metaphors and just dealt with the facts at hand. Pissing into the wind, climate change, travelling to Mars - you're all over the place...
I do think that there are different factors at play in Trump's case and I think that he's responsible for almost all of them.
Saying dumb, contradictory shit every other sentence, being the most divisive President in living memory, deliberately picking fights with... everyone... I can only imagine what working for that nut-case would be like - don't think I'd last long tbh. You really don't need to be Columbo to deduce why there's a revolving door - you just refuse to see it.
Twitter and the media weren't invented the day Trump came into office you know!
Well being more direct got me nowhere when it was insisted that only Trumps numbers vs prior Presidents was the only factor that needed to be taken in account. Instead of taking the same approach and beating a dead horse, I tried a different approach and it worked, since we've moved past it now, so I'd have to say it did help.
Based on what I've seen or heard about Trump, I've worked for way worse people. It wasn't the best case scenario and some of my bosses were real a holes and one in particular was an absolute moron and only had the job because of a close family connection, and yet I never quit. Now there were a few guys who did quit over the years for that very reason, but it wasn't a surprise and was as much of a relief as getting a new boss would have been because they whined about everything, all the time.
Social media has been around for 10-15 years, the msm has been around for 100 or so but much more prominent and wide reaching over the last 50 or so years, and newspapers have been around for hundreds of years. The wider the reach of any type of media, the more freedom for the people, but more problems that can also arise.
I just asked a question like you did. I eat waffles for breakfast.
So your saying it's not possible for a person to have higher standards than the available people they're able to hire in a given amount of time? Then why are we bothering to try and get to Mars? Might as well just lower our standards to the moon because we know we can achieve that apparently. What kind of idiot would even dare strive for Mars... Are they idiots?
The irony of the DK effect, is that those who point out others who suffer from it, may very well have it backwards, and not know it.
Your right, this is fun.
What I am saying is that your defense of a dumb hyperbolic statement is just that waffling. You have no clue what Trump's standards are and neither do I. So trying to paint that he has some high standards is garbage. So why don't you give examples of exactly the high standards you can prove Trump has for being President. I await your reply.
At Bolded: Lol, why don't you school me on the DK effect. This should be interesting.
When you take political leaders to your home instead of the WH to impress them. Definitely a low standards minimalist.
You just pointed out you've done a bunch of reading on it, enough to make an observation that Trump fits the profile of the psychological issue itself, and now you want me to explain it to you?