Michael Cohen - Why Am I Supposed To Care?

[beagle9]

So, why would Trump hire such a person?

Are you saying Trtump is so fucking stupid he did not know?
Or did he need a sleazy, lying lawyer to do Trump's dirty work.

Let me know which it is.

Trump hires people that will be usefully to him and keeps them only as long as they are loyal to him. He has no interest in their character. This is why a half dozen of his people are facing jail time and 4 of his cabinet members have had to resign over ethics issues. Trump seems to have drained the swamp into the White House.

Every employer hires ONLY people who will be useful to the business so that it can pay their salary, pay the bills of the business, and make a profit. If you hire people who have no respect for boundaries, they will steal merchandise, remove any money that passes their way that reduces a business to bankruptcy, lawsuits from creditors, etc. It's not that Trump doesn't care about his employees, sometimes an employer's firing the employ with a justifiable reason, that employee will benefit by learning a lesson from that business of having to return what he stole, face the unemployment office, and trying to get by at a different job. Loose lips sink ships, and employers don't tolerate loose lip big mouth singers. Bad employees can make an employer sick and disable him from doing his job of feeding the other mouths in the business who are doing their job, who are bring public favor to the business.

Nobody likes to fire people, Flopper, and least of all a President from a strong business background of dealing with thousands of employees over a lifetime. You have to get rid of not only the unproductive ones who do little to justify paying their salary, but you cannot keep someone who gives up valuable information about how somebody else can outsell, steal from, and capitalize from that employee's boss's hard work of organizing and maintaining a viable business. That is backstabbing madness and nobody has to put up with that. Nobody. It takes money out the door and puts it on someone else's doorstep.

How can you say that? Trump did what he could to satisfy an angry person he had already paid but demanded more. It's smarter to settle these kinds of complaints out of court. If the "offended" person is merely milking an already bad situation, you can bet your bottom dollar the employer will never do business with that rat's patoot again. You expect people who hire employees to run a profitable business NOT to expect them to make money for the business by doing the work that goes into doing just that?

Or if he was paying for a service with an agreed upon price, and later she comes back and threatens to blackmail him and he reaches an agreement to pay more, just to keep his life private everybody should take the blackmailer's side? It just doesn't work like that.

Oh, and by the way, employers are not allowed to give too many details about the person they fire other than the day that person went to work and the day that left. Most everything else is confidential. Most people don't know that, but political hacks do, and they can say anything they want to on account of a law that was passed saying that famous people have to take it. That's so wrong.

A lot of criminals have children. But the issue isn't about their beautiful kids. Findings in court are about getting a criminal's attention that he cannot do what he was doing any more, and the judge usually recommends the minimum amount of time he thinks it will take to get that behavior extinguished for good so that when the man or woman goes free, recidivism will not occur. Hopefully that young woman's other parent will be her guide while her father receives rehabilitation.

I'm really not interest in Trump's hiring and firing in his businesses which was not his responsibility. We're talking about his staff in the White House.

Trump would not stand for any of his mangers in his businesses to have the turnover rate he has in the white house. The average tenure of a Trump Chief of Staff is about 8 months. In the Obama administration it was 19 months and in the Bush's administration it was 4 years, and 2 years in the Clinton administration. Are you telling me Trump's chiefs of staff are out living their usefulness in 8 months. It would take longer that to just learn to the job. The reasonable explanation is Trump does not understand the White House, his job, or the job's of his staff.

His turnover rate is to be expected since he has no experience at all in managing a large staff of people. Over the last 30 years, his staff has consisted of 6 people, 2 being family members, a lawyer, a CFO, and a CEO. As president he has 53 people who directly report to him. His new Chief of Staff is a legislator who has practically no experience in management of people and was probably selected because the president felt he could trust him, just another case of the blind leading the blind in the White House.

The numbers game eh ?? Look we all know that this is no normal presidency, and when you come into a company with so many problems, then it is clean house time.

Simple

If the new staff or employee's come in carrying alot of baggage or problems with them, then they have to go too.

What do you mean clean house? These people we're talking about were picked by Trump. For about 15 years my job included hiring and firing. If I had to fire people, I hand picked for the job at the rate Trump has, I would have been out of a job in no time at all. In every place I have worked, managers are judge on now successful they are at hiring and keeping the right people.

Since Trump doesn't understand the jobs in the White House and the required skills for those jobs, he has to rely on the experience and knowledge of others. And as we all know he rarely takes any advice. It seems his main criteria is loyalty so you might want to apply for Chief of Staff. I'm sure there will be an opening soon.

Here's the problem with your statement. Your arrogance makes you think that you can say that Trump doesn't know what he is doing, but by whose standards are you judging this by eh ??

 

[RealDave]

Trump hires people that will be usefully to him and keeps them only as long as they are loyal to him. He has no interest in their character. This is why a half dozen of his people are facing jail time and 4 of his cabinet members have had to resign over ethics issues. Trump seems to have drained the swamp into the White House.

Every employer hires ONLY people who will be useful to the business so that it can pay their salary, pay the bills of the business, and make a profit. If you hire people who have no respect for boundaries, they will steal merchandise, remove any money that passes their way that reduces a business to bankruptcy, lawsuits from creditors, etc. It's not that Trump doesn't care about his employees, sometimes an employer's firing the employ with a justifiable reason, that employee will benefit by learning a lesson from that business of having to return what he stole, face the unemployment office, and trying to get by at a different job. Loose lips sink ships, and employers don't tolerate loose lip big mouth singers. Bad employees can make an employer sick and disable him from doing his job of feeding the other mouths in the business who are doing their job, who are bring public favor to the business.

Nobody likes to fire people, Flopper, and least of all a President from a strong business background of dealing with thousands of employees over a lifetime. You have to get rid of not only the unproductive ones who do little to justify paying their salary, but you cannot keep someone who gives up valuable information about how somebody else can outsell, steal from, and capitalize from that employee's boss's hard work of organizing and maintaining a viable business. That is backstabbing madness and nobody has to put up with that. Nobody. It takes money out the door and puts it on someone else's doorstep.

How can you say that? Trump did what he could to satisfy an angry person he had already paid but demanded more. It's smarter to settle these kinds of complaints out of court. If the "offended" person is merely milking an already bad situation, you can bet your bottom dollar the employer will never do business with that rat's patoot again. You expect people who hire employees to run a profitable business NOT to expect them to make money for the business by doing the work that goes into doing just that?

Or if he was paying for a service with an agreed upon price, and later she comes back and threatens to blackmail him and he reaches an agreement to pay more, just to keep his life private everybody should take the blackmailer's side? It just doesn't work like that.

Oh, and by the way, employers are not allowed to give too many details about the person they fire other than the day that person went to work and the day that left. Most everything else is confidential. Most people don't know that, but political hacks do, and they can say anything they want to on account of a law that was passed saying that famous people have to take it. That's so wrong.

A lot of criminals have children. But the issue isn't about their beautiful kids. Findings in court are about getting a criminal's attention that he cannot do what he was doing any more, and the judge usually recommends the minimum amount of time he thinks it will take to get that behavior extinguished for good so that when the man or woman goes free, recidivism will not occur. Hopefully that young woman's other parent will be her guide while her father receives rehabilitation.

I'm really not interest in Trump's hiring and firing in his businesses which was not his responsibility. We're talking about his staff in the White House.

Trump would not stand for any of his mangers in his businesses to have the turnover rate he has in the white house. The average tenure of a Trump Chief of Staff is about 8 months. In the Obama administration it was 19 months and in the Bush's administration it was 4 years, and 2 years in the Clinton administration. Are you telling me Trump's chiefs of staff are out living their usefulness in 8 months. It would take longer that to just learn to the job. The reasonable explanation is Trump does not understand the White House, his job, or the job's of his staff.

His turnover rate is to be expected since he has no experience at all in managing a large staff of people. Over the last 30 years, his staff has consisted of 6 people, 2 being family members, a lawyer, a CFO, and a CEO. As president he has 53 people who directly report to him. His new Chief of Staff is a legislator who has practically no experience in management of people and was probably selected because the president felt he could trust him, just another case of the blind leading the blind in the White House.

The numbers game eh ?? Look we all know that this is no normal presidency, and when you come into a company with so many problems, then it is clean house time.

Simple

If the new staff or employee's come in carrying alot of baggage or problems with them, then they have to go too.

What do you mean clean house? These people we're talking about were picked by Trump. For about 15 years my job included hiring and firing. If I had to fire people, I hand picked for the job at the rate Trump has, I would have been out of a job in no time at all. In every place I have worked, managers are judge on now successful they are at hiring and keeping the right people.

Since Trump doesn't understand the jobs in the White House and the required skills for those jobs, he has to rely on the experience and knowledge of others. And as we all know he rarely takes any advice. It seems his main criteria is loyalty so you might want to apply for Chief of Staff. I'm sure there will be an opening soon.

Here's the problem with your statement. Your arrogance makes you think that you can say that Trump doesn't know what he is doing, but by whose standards are you judging this by eh ??

OK,m so, what in Trump's education & background gives Trump the knowledge & expertise to run the military? Foreign policy? Our economy? I mean, our economy is more that building building s & fucking contractors out of money.

The problem with you & Trump, you think he knows shit. He doesn't. As proven by his tariffs, pissing off our allies, hiring crooks,

Other Presidents took office not knowing shit but they listed to the experts. Trump does not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So Michael Cohen is testifying before Congress, and leftists everywhere are wetting their frillies over it . . . and for the life of me, I can't figure out what he was expected to say or has said that I'm actually supposed to give much of a damn about, or why.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't seem to have come up with any smoking guns about impeachable offenses or even particularly criminal ones, unless you have a serious hard-on for really nitpicky campaign finance stuff. Mostly, he seems to be spending a lot of time convincing us that Trump is a crappy person. First, that's not really news; and second, what's your point? Is anyone really expecting us to put the country through a torturous, expensive impeachment proceeding over "I've heard him say black people are stupid"?

I think h e made the Dimocrats look stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid.

In fairness to him, that was pretty much already an accomplished fact before he opened his piehole.

 

[dannyboys]

It's all a moot point. I give Cohen less than three months in federal prison before the 'brothers' off him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pardon me for being pedantic, but on the actual thread topic, what did Cohen say that was actually meaningful beyond the confirmation bias? I have so far only heard one possible answer to this question.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

what did Cohen say that was actually meaningful

He named names. That was the entire point. The Dems were just laying the groundwork for future investigations and subpoenas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

what did Cohen say that was actually meaningful

He named names. That was the entire point. The Dems were just laying the groundwork for future investigations and subpoenas.

Yeeeaahhh . . . no. "Named names" impresses me not at all, particularly since he didn't really say anything that wasn't already either known or alleged, and his word for it doesn't constitute proof.

I will agree that this was all just about the Dems inventing excuses to waste time on "Gotcha!" instead of doing the jobs they were putatively elected to do, though.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Pardon me for being pedantic, but on the actual thread topic, what did Cohen say that was actually meaningful beyond the confirmation bias? I have so far only heard one possible answer to this question.

He said that there was no collusion with Russia.

Which translates into telling the Democrats "Bite Me!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pardon me for being pedantic, but on the actual thread topic, what did Cohen say that was actually meaningful beyond the confirmation bias? I have so far only heard one possible answer to this question.

He said that there was no collusion with Russia.

Which translates into telling the Democrats "Bite Me!"

I will say it's interesting that in some aspects, he actually exonerated President Trump of the suspicions about him. It's also interesting that the media is assiduously avoiding any mention of that.

 

[Fang]

So Michael Cohen is testifying before Congress, and leftists everywhere are wetting their frillies over it . . . and for the life of me, I can't figure out what he was expected to say or has said that I'm actually supposed to give much of a damn about, or why.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't seem to have come up with any smoking guns about impeachable offenses or even particularly criminal ones, unless you have a serious hard-on for really nitpicky campaign finance stuff. Mostly, he seems to be spending a lot of time convincing us that Trump is a crappy person. First, that's not really news; and second, what's your point? Is anyone really expecting us to put the country through a torturous, expensive impeachment proceeding over "I've heard him say black people are stupid"?

El Chapo fans say the same thing about his trial

You and open borders Liberals of your ilk would know.

 

[BlackFlag]

So Michael Cohen is testifying before Congress, and leftists everywhere are wetting their frillies over it . . . and for the life of me, I can't figure out what he was expected to say or has said that I'm actually supposed to give much of a damn about, or why.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't seem to have come up with any smoking guns about impeachable offenses or even particularly criminal ones, unless you have a serious hard-on for really nitpicky campaign finance stuff. Mostly, he seems to be spending a lot of time convincing us that Trump is a crappy person. First, that's not really news; and second, what's your point? Is anyone really expecting us to put the country through a torturous, expensive impeachment proceeding over "I've heard him say black people are stupid"?

El Chapo fans say the same thing about his trial

You and open borders Liberals of your ilk would know.

It's in the news. Only a retard wouldn't know. Did you know that you're a retard?

 

[Flopper]

Trump hires people that will be usefully to him and keeps them only as long as they are loyal to him. He has no interest in their character. This is why a half dozen of his people are facing jail time and 4 of his cabinet members have had to resign over ethics issues. Trump seems to have drained the swamp into the White House.

Every employer hires ONLY people who will be useful to the business so that it can pay their salary, pay the bills of the business, and make a profit. If you hire people who have no respect for boundaries, they will steal merchandise, remove any money that passes their way that reduces a business to bankruptcy, lawsuits from creditors, etc. It's not that Trump doesn't care about his employees, sometimes an employer's firing the employ with a justifiable reason, that employee will benefit by learning a lesson from that business of having to return what he stole, face the unemployment office, and trying to get by at a different job. Loose lips sink ships, and employers don't tolerate loose lip big mouth singers. Bad employees can make an employer sick and disable him from doing his job of feeding the other mouths in the business who are doing their job, who are bring public favor to the business.

Nobody likes to fire people, Flopper, and least of all a President from a strong business background of dealing with thousands of employees over a lifetime. You have to get rid of not only the unproductive ones who do little to justify paying their salary, but you cannot keep someone who gives up valuable information about how somebody else can outsell, steal from, and capitalize from that employee's boss's hard work of organizing and maintaining a viable business. That is backstabbing madness and nobody has to put up with that. Nobody. It takes money out the door and puts it on someone else's doorstep.

How can you say that? Trump did what he could to satisfy an angry person he had already paid but demanded more. It's smarter to settle these kinds of complaints out of court. If the "offended" person is merely milking an already bad situation, you can bet your bottom dollar the employer will never do business with that rat's patoot again. You expect people who hire employees to run a profitable business NOT to expect them to make money for the business by doing the work that goes into doing just that?

Or if he was paying for a service with an agreed upon price, and later she comes back and threatens to blackmail him and he reaches an agreement to pay more, just to keep his life private everybody should take the blackmailer's side? It just doesn't work like that.

Oh, and by the way, employers are not allowed to give too many details about the person they fire other than the day that person went to work and the day that left. Most everything else is confidential. Most people don't know that, but political hacks do, and they can say anything they want to on account of a law that was passed saying that famous people have to take it. That's so wrong.

A lot of criminals have children. But the issue isn't about their beautiful kids. Findings in court are about getting a criminal's attention that he cannot do what he was doing any more, and the judge usually recommends the minimum amount of time he thinks it will take to get that behavior extinguished for good so that when the man or woman goes free, recidivism will not occur. Hopefully that young woman's other parent will be her guide while her father receives rehabilitation.

I'm really not interest in Trump's hiring and firing in his businesses which was not his responsibility. We're talking about his staff in the White House.

Trump would not stand for any of his mangers in his businesses to have the turnover rate he has in the white house. The average tenure of a Trump Chief of Staff is about 8 months. In the Obama administration it was 19 months and in the Bush's administration it was 4 years, and 2 years in the Clinton administration. Are you telling me Trump's chiefs of staff are out living their usefulness in 8 months. It would take longer that to just learn to the job. The reasonable explanation is Trump does not understand the White House, his job, or the job's of his staff.

His turnover rate is to be expected since he has no experience at all in managing a large staff of people. Over the last 30 years, his staff has consisted of 6 people, 2 being family members, a lawyer, a CFO, and a CEO. As president he has 53 people who directly report to him. His new Chief of Staff is a legislator who has practically no experience in management of people and was probably selected because the president felt he could trust him, just another case of the blind leading the blind in the White House.

The numbers game eh ?? Look we all know that this is no normal presidency, and when you come into a company with so many problems, then it is clean house time.

Simple

If the new staff or employee's come in carrying alot of baggage or problems with them, then they have to go too.

What do you mean clean house? These people we're talking about were picked by Trump. For about 15 years my job included hiring and firing. If I had to fire people, I hand picked for the job at the rate Trump has, I would have been out of a job in no time at all. In every place I have worked, managers are judge on now successful they are at hiring and keeping the right people.

Since Trump doesn't understand the jobs in the White House and the required skills for those jobs, he has to rely on the experience and knowledge of others. And as we all know he rarely takes any advice. It seems his main criteria is loyalty so you might want to apply for Chief of Staff. I'm sure there will be an opening soon.

Here's the problem with your statement. Your arrogance makes you think that you can say that Trump doesn't know what he is doing, but by whose standards are you judging this by eh ??

When he has to fill the Chief of Staff position 3 times, the National Security Advisory position 4 times, and the Secretary of State position 3 times, in just 2 years, I would say the problem is not the help but the boss.

The last republican president had 2 Chiefs of Staffs, 2 Secretaries of State, and 2 National Security Advisers in 8 years. Obama had more, but not even close to Trump's record. In fact, Trump is setting records for turnover in the White House.

IMHO, the president does not understand what these jobs entail nor what is required to do them. So after a few months of asking these people to do what they can't do and being unable to provide any guidance, relations sour and then there's a job opening.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When he has to fill the Chief of Staff position 3 times, the National Security Advisory position 4 times, and the Secretary of State position 3 times, in just 2 years, I would say the problem is not the help but the boss.

The last republican president had 2 Chiefs of Staffs, 2 Secretaries of State, and 2 National Security Advisers in 8 years. Obama had more, but not even close to Trump's record. In fact, Trump is setting records for turnover in the White House.

IMHO, the president does not understand what these jobs entail nor what is required to do them. So after a few months of asking these people to do what they can't do and being unable to provide any guidance, relations sour and then there's a job opening.

It is merely his management style, born of the New York Real Estate industry. He hires people for a p[articular task or situation and then lets them go when the situation has been addressed. Look at h is campaign, he did the same thing there, Lewenkowski was the unconventional guy who perfected Trumps Free Air Time By Being Trollish, then Manafort was the convention counting Maestro, and then Trump got rid of Manafort once he won the Convention and hired two more.

This is just how Trump does things.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He hires people for a p[articular task or situation and then lets them go when the situation has been addressed.

Haha...wow. Trump cultism on parade.

 

[Flopper]

When he has to fill the Chief of Staff position 3 times, the National Security Advisory position 4 times, and the Secretary of State position 3 times, in just 2 years, I would say the problem is not the help but the boss.

The last republican president had 2 Chiefs of Staffs, 2 Secretaries of State, and 2 National Security Advisers in 8 years. Obama had more, but not even close to Trump's record. In fact, Trump is setting records for turnover in the White House.

IMHO, the president does not understand what these jobs entail nor what is required to do them. So after a few months of asking these people to do what they can't do and being unable to provide any guidance, relations sour and then there's a job opening.

It is merely his management style, born of the New York Real Estate industry. He hires people for a p[articular task or situation and then lets them go when the situation has been addressed. Look at h is campaign, he did the same thing there, Lewenkowski was the unconventional guy who perfected Trumps Free Air Time By Being Trollish, then Manafort was the convention counting Maestro, and then Trump got rid of Manafort once he won the Convention and hired two more.

This is just how Trump does things.

Sorry but that's an apples and oranges comparison. A real estate developer may hire someone to design a golf course or a candidate might hire an advisory to prepare for a political debate. Once the job is done, there is no need for the person.

White House jobs we are discussing are on going. They never reach completion. These jobs require good problem skills to solve ever changing problems in a variety of areas which is why the president should not hire specialists. By the end of the first year, these people are just getting up to speed having built their staff and learned the ropes.

 

[Toro]

So a bitter 4 count convicted felon heading to prison says negatives things about his ex employer.

"I only hire the best people"

Your Orange God.

 

[beagle9]

Every employer hires ONLY people who will be useful to the business so that it can pay their salary, pay the bills of the business, and make a profit. If you hire people who have no respect for boundaries, they will steal merchandise, remove any money that passes their way that reduces a business to bankruptcy, lawsuits from creditors, etc. It's not that Trump doesn't care about his employees, sometimes an employer's firing the employ with a justifiable reason, that employee will benefit by learning a lesson from that business of having to return what he stole, face the unemployment office, and trying to get by at a different job. Loose lips sink ships, and employers don't tolerate loose lip big mouth singers. Bad employees can make an employer sick and disable him from doing his job of feeding the other mouths in the business who are doing their job, who are bring public favor to the business.

Nobody likes to fire people, Flopper, and least of all a President from a strong business background of dealing with thousands of employees over a lifetime. You have to get rid of not only the unproductive ones who do little to justify paying their salary, but you cannot keep someone who gives up valuable information about how somebody else can outsell, steal from, and capitalize from that employee's boss's hard work of organizing and maintaining a viable business. That is backstabbing madness and nobody has to put up with that. Nobody. It takes money out the door and puts it on someone else's doorstep.

How can you say that? Trump did what he could to satisfy an angry person he had already paid but demanded more. It's smarter to settle these kinds of complaints out of court. If the "offended" person is merely milking an already bad situation, you can bet your bottom dollar the employer will never do business with that rat's patoot again. You expect people who hire employees to run a profitable business NOT to expect them to make money for the business by doing the work that goes into doing just that?

Or if he was paying for a service with an agreed upon price, and later she comes back and threatens to blackmail him and he reaches an agreement to pay more, just to keep his life private everybody should take the blackmailer's side? It just doesn't work like that.

Oh, and by the way, employers are not allowed to give too many details about the person they fire other than the day that person went to work and the day that left. Most everything else is confidential. Most people don't know that, but political hacks do, and they can say anything they want to on account of a law that was passed saying that famous people have to take it. That's so wrong.

A lot of criminals have children. But the issue isn't about their beautiful kids. Findings in court are about getting a criminal's attention that he cannot do what he was doing any more, and the judge usually recommends the minimum amount of time he thinks it will take to get that behavior extinguished for good so that when the man or woman goes free, recidivism will not occur. Hopefully that young woman's other parent will be her guide while her father receives rehabilitation.

I'm really not interest in Trump's hiring and firing in his businesses which was not his responsibility. We're talking about his staff in the White House.

Trump would not stand for any of his mangers in his businesses to have the turnover rate he has in the white house. The average tenure of a Trump Chief of Staff is about 8 months. In the Obama administration it was 19 months and in the Bush's administration it was 4 years, and 2 years in the Clinton administration. Are you telling me Trump's chiefs of staff are out living their usefulness in 8 months. It would take longer that to just learn to the job. The reasonable explanation is Trump does not understand the White House, his job, or the job's of his staff.

His turnover rate is to be expected since he has no experience at all in managing a large staff of people. Over the last 30 years, his staff has consisted of 6 people, 2 being family members, a lawyer, a CFO, and a CEO. As president he has 53 people who directly report to him. His new Chief of Staff is a legislator who has practically no experience in management of people and was probably selected because the president felt he could trust him, just another case of the blind leading the blind in the White House.

The numbers game eh ?? Look we all know that this is no normal presidency, and when you come into a company with so many problems, then it is clean house time.

Simple

If the new staff or employee's come in carrying alot of baggage or problems with them, then they have to go too.

What do you mean clean house? These people we're talking about were picked by Trump. For about 15 years my job included hiring and firing. If I had to fire people, I hand picked for the job at the rate Trump has, I would have been out of a job in no time at all. In every place I have worked, managers are judge on now successful they are at hiring and keeping the right people.

Since Trump doesn't understand the jobs in the White House and the required skills for those jobs, he has to rely on the experience and knowledge of others. And as we all know he rarely takes any advice. It seems his main criteria is loyalty so you might want to apply for Chief of Staff. I'm sure there will be an opening soon.

Here's the problem with your statement. Your arrogance makes you think that you can say that Trump doesn't know what he is doing, but by whose standards are you judging this by eh ??

When he has to fill the Chief of Staff position 3 times, the National Security Advisory position 4 times, and the Secretary of State position 3 times, in just 2 years, I would say the problem is not the help but the boss.

The last republican president had 2 Chiefs of Staffs, 2 Secretaries of State, and 2 National Security Advisers in 8 years. Obama had more, but not even close to Trump's record. In fact, Trump is setting records for turnover in the White House.

IMHO, the president does not understand what these jobs entail nor what is required to do them. So after a few months of asking these people to do what they can't do and being unable to provide any guidance, relations sour and then there's a job opening.

Listen, have you ever seen a president attacked so ferociously by another party as Trump has been, and for something he didn't do or because of a failed liberal agenda that was being shoved down the nation's throat prior ???? Who would want to be subjected to that kind of chaos in a job situation, where everyone working in the administration is constantly under fire ??

Sooner or later the people best wake up to the nation being destroyed in this "death by a thousand cuts" type of situation going on.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Listen, have you ever seen a president attacked so ferociously by another party as Trump has been for something he didn't do

Well, you certainly do have the game all rigged up for yourself.

 

[beagle9]

When he has to fill the Chief of Staff position 3 times, the National Security Advisory position 4 times, and the Secretary of State position 3 times, in just 2 years, I would say the problem is not the help but the boss.

The last republican president had 2 Chiefs of Staffs, 2 Secretaries of State, and 2 National Security Advisers in 8 years. Obama had more, but not even close to Trump's record. In fact, Trump is setting records for turnover in the White House.

IMHO, the president does not understand what these jobs entail nor what is required to do them. So after a few months of asking these people to do what they can't do and being unable to provide any guidance, relations sour and then there's a job opening.

It is merely his management style, born of the New York Real Estate industry. He hires people for a p[articular task or situation and then lets them go when the situation has been addressed. Look at h is campaign, he did the same thing there, Lewenkowski was the unconventional guy who perfected Trumps Free Air Time By Being Trollish, then Manafort was the convention counting Maestro, and then Trump got rid of Manafort once he won the Convention and hired two more.

This is just how Trump does things.

Sorry but that's an apples and oranges comparison. A real estate developer may hire someone to design a golf course or a candidate might hire an advisory to prepare for a political debate. Once the job is done, there is no need for the person.

White House jobs we are discussing are on going. They never reach completion. These jobs require good problem skills to solve ever changing problems in a variety of areas which is why the president should not hire specialists. By the end of the first year, these people are just getting up to speed having built their staff and learned the ropes.

You think 4 years is enough to learn a powerful position in government ??

 

[beagle9]

Listen, have you ever seen a president attacked so ferociously by another party as Trump has been for something he didn't do

Well, you certainly do have the game all rigged up for yourself.

Care to address the post or have you turned to trolling now ??