The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Maybe not have hired them without proper vetting scrutiny in the first place?

I can already see the path you're going to go down here.

I have vivid memories of W Bush and Obama. Their shake-ups were mostly routine and not over the types of scandals we've seen with DJTs boys - and girls.

Maybe I'm confused, but when you bitterly point and laugh whenever one of them is fired, it sounds quite a bit like you'd rather he keep them in office. Hate boners aren't exactly rational I guess.

[rubber soul]

Originally Posted by Frownland

In other words: conform or else!



Maybe the cheap attempt to strongarm a nation is part of why she lost? Idk.

Could be. That and she thought she was entitled to be Queen of America.

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Maybe not have hired them without proper vetting scrutiny in the first place?

I can already see the path you're going to go down here.

I have vivid memories of W Bush and Obama. Their shake-ups were mostly routine and not over the types of scandals we've seen with DJTs boys - and girls.

Plus Bush and Obama were pretty loyal to their staff. I've never heard former staff ever say a bad word about either of them.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Scott Pruitt FINALLY fired. One of DJT's favorite lapdogs gets handed his walking papers - long overdue.

DJs been in office for less than 600 days. Anyone keeping tabs on how many of his inner circle have been fired, resigned, indicted, plead guilty, been under house arrest, etc.?

Unprecedented I tell ya.

^ I wonder how much this scumbag has cost America. Not just in his misuse of the US tax dollar, but for the cost of the 14 investigations that his abuse of office has generated.

Originally Posted by Frownland

Changing staff throughout a term is well precedented.

^ What's unprecedented is the rate of turnover in the Trump admin:-

According to calculations made by Kathryn Dunn Tenpas at Brookings, there has been a 43% attrition rate among senior staffers within the Trump administration. That's massively higher than any recent past president; Bill Clinton had the second highest first-year turnover, with 11%.

Given how Trump bragged about "getting the best people", two things are remarkable; (i) the people he got (ii) their inability to hold the office: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...istration.html

^ Just from this list we have Flynn, Spicer, Porter, Price, Bannon, Scaramucci, Hicks - not exactly a roll of honour imo.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

What's unprecedented is the rate of turnover in the Trump admin:-

And that, on its face, is meaningless.

Does anybody remember making fun of conservatives for weeping over every non-issue in the Obama administration?

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

^ I wonder how much this scumbag has cost America.

-1 nicest member point.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by Frownland

And that, on its face, is meaningless.

^ What I wrote seemed to make sense to me.

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

-1 nicest member point.

^ HaHa! I guess I must have a "hate boner" too. Here's a women who is quite convincing (first 5 mins anyway) about how Pruitt's behaviour is contemptable at a superficial level (petty misuse of funds) and dangerous at a serious level ( environmental damage):-

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

^ What I wrote seemed to make sense to me.

Make the hubbub about their corrupt actions. High turnover rate doesn't necessarily point to anything meaningful, especially since there's been a bit of variety for the reasons people are leaving/being removed from their job.

It's disingenuous and does more harm to your side than good when you zero in on non-issues, especially when you have so much to work with. That's why I brought up Obama-era conservatives: being reactionary is not a good move for any political stripe.

And no offense man, but it reads like you approach the media without the necessary criticism that our modern times command.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Make the hubbub about their corrupt actions. High turnover rate doesn't necessarily point to anything meaningful, especially since there's been a bit of variety for the reasons people are leaving/being removed from their job.

^ Yep, high turn-over rate is a secondary issue. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

It's disingenuous and does more harm to your side than good when you zero in on non-issues, especially when you have so much to work with. That's why I brought up Obama-era conservatives: being reactionary is not a good move for any political stripe.

^ Turnover has been a non-issue in previous admins, but Trump turned it into an issue when he touted himself as a businessman able to get the best people. Every businessman knows that high staff turnover is an indication of either a poor selection process or poor work environment, and is usually attributed to bad management. It's not a big deal, but I still feel it's worth deflating one of Trump's unjustified bragging points.

And no offense man, but it reads like you approach the media without the necessary criticism that our modern times command.

^ Yes, probably true. grindy once posted a really good article about how people get sucked into media-induced anger which made me aware that I was pretty gullible.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

^ Turnover has been a non-issue in previous admins, but Trump turned it into an issue when he touted himself as a businessman able to get the best people. Every businessman knows that high staff turnover is an indication of either a poor selection process or poor work environment, and is usually attributed to bad management. It's not a big deal, but I still feel it's worth deflating one of Trump's unjustified bragging points.

1. I care about action, not hypocrisy. Shifting on campaign promises is a trademark move of politicians.
2. Government=/=business and viewing it as such engenders ludicrously dangerous policy.
3. It's not a big deal, agreed.
4. Zeroing in on things that aren't a big deal does not reflect positively on you and unfortunately that's extrapolated to represent your side, especially given that so many people have opted for echo chambers that exposure to the other side is far too infrequent.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by elphenor

false equivalency

I guess you could say that it's different since Fox logic representation is no longer the severe minority. Actually, you're right. What we're seeing here is worse. Everybody turned into their dumb uncle at Thanksgiving dinner.