(12-10-2018, 06:45 AM)Fry Guy Wrote: So will they be "unqualified" or will you not like them?

Not liking someone does not preclude them from being qualified or not. I'm simply telling you that no one of any caliber is going to accept that position in that White House. It just isn't happening. Whatever trump touches dies and the smart people with good reputations know this. The only people who will be willing to risk their reputation are going to be those with not much of one to risk.

(12-10-2018, 05:34 AM)Duchess Wrote: It's a "big thing" when the president of the United States of America cannot get qualified people to work for him, particularly when it's normally such a coveted job. Wait until you see who he puts in there, that will show you just how difficult it is to fill that role and why it's a big deal.

I think Trump's personality and style makes the Chief of Staff position in his administration even more critical than most administrations.  

But, Trump's made it clear that he doesn't like having restrictions and doesn't respond well to strong advice/recommendations from his direct-reports when it's not what he wants to hear.

Chief of Staff is a tough (albeit coveted) job anyway.  It's gotta be even tougher given Trump's style, the investigations and re-election bid underway, and the cast of characters (including family members) with competing agendas within the administration.  

I can see a lot of potential candidates rejecting consideration because they fear it won't be the usual stepping stone position and instead a political career-ender.  But, who knows?  Maybe a great risk taker will raise his or her hand.

It's been kinda funny thinking back on Trump's tweet criticisms of Obama.

Paraphrased by me:  

--"Too much golf!" -- well, Trump golfs way more than Obama ever did.
 
--"Too many executive orders!" -- well, Trump's pace of signing EOs far exceeds Obama's or any other President since Eisenhower.  

--"Too much secret service expense protecting the Obamas' personal travel" -- well, the Trumps are on pace to greatly exceed the Obamas' eight year cost in much less time.

And, remember this one?



Trump is going on his 3^rd chief of staff in two years.  

So, Trump is  'winning' again.  

Clang could pass the kitchen sink.

People... all the best people... are guessing Trump will have to place Corey Lewandowski or Chris Christie in as COS since they basically have nothing to lose. I'm holding out for Ivanka.

Ivanka and Jared reportedly advocated strongly for Nick Ayers, before he rejected the position via Twitter.


^ Mark Meadows, the outgoing chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus (tea party) on Monday made it clear he is interested in the (Chief of Staff) role, saying he would be honored to be chosen.

“Serving as chief of staff would be an incredible honor,” Meadows, 59, said in a statement. “The president has a long list of qualified candidates and I know he’ll make the best selection for his administration and for the country.”

Meadows’s allies also made a forceful public case that Trump should pick their friend as his next top aide – something the North Carolina has been asking his friends to do, according to Republican sources.

Meadows’s fellow House conservatives say Trump would be getting an effective communicator and politically savvy loyalist who understands how to parry special counsel Robert Mueller’s intensifying probe into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, as well as newly empowered House Democrats who are preparing to launch multiple investigations into the administration.

White House sources confirmed that Meadows is on Trump’s list, but there are no indications that he is the front-runner.

Sources said there was no clear plan B after Trump’s first choice, 36-year-old Nick Ayers, turned down the job, indicating the White House is prepared for a lengthy search to replace chief of staff John Kelly.

“They’re at square one. There is no favorite. There is no one in line. They’re starting at square one,” said one person close to the White House, who requested anonymity to discuss the search.  Several other administration officials and outside allies are believed to be in the mix, but it is unclear how many of them want the position.

Full story:  https://thehill.com/homenews/house/42064...e-his-move

I hope Mark Meadows is offered the position. It will be my extreme pleasure to sit back and watch him be ruined too.

Cool! Because he is a Republican you would like him to be ruined. Yay!

I don't dislike people simply because they're a fuckin' republican. Go read about some of these people that you comment on and often defend.

She's a boo bird.

(12-11-2018, 06:38 AM)Duchess Wrote: I don't dislike people simply because they're a fuckin' republican. Go read about some of these people that you comment on and often defend.

Okay I will tell you that I believe that politics is a nasty business and the people attracted to it are rarely the best people for it. I will tell you that I believe that a politician is normally amoral or immoral and prepared to sell their vote or compromise their values as a trade off for the fame and power.

So with that in mind I have no problem with the prospect or the idea that any given politician will have something horrible in their past or some unsavoury opinions or behaviours.

You, by your own proclamation, are independent and not in the bag for either party. I will not say otherwise BUT I will ask you a simple question:

I am happy enough for you to tell me any particular person close to Trump or any Republican politician is bad. Fair enough BUT as you are not a Democrat and as almost all politicians are bad. Why is it that you have focused exclusively on Republicans and Trump family and associates and not at all on the other side. Plenty on both sides that are awful.

Example - Mannafort is the embodiment of a slimy swamp creature but no less than the Podesta brothers.

You are being self-selecting and it is not by accident. It is also not because there is not equal amounts of crap on both sides. But you, an independent, are 100% towing the Democrat talking points and railing against the Democrat enemies with no critique on Democrats.

You can do as you please by I am wondering why?

(12-11-2018, 09:37 AM)Fry Guy Wrote: Why is it that you have focused exclusively on Republicans and Trump family and associates

...because they are the people in the news, because they are the people calling the shots, because they are the people with all the power. That's why.

(12-11-2018, 12:22 PM)Duchess Wrote: ...because they are the people in the news, because they are the people calling the shots, because they are the people with all the power. That's why.

Did you just see the press conference with President Trump, VP Pence, Speaker of the House Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer?  That was an interesting public debate.

The main focus was funding for the 'The Wall'.  Pelosi and Schumer say they're all in for funding greater border security, but that the multi-billion dollar wall proposal isn't a necessity and doesn't have the votes from the Republican side.  

Trump claimed he does have the Republican votes, so Pelosi said it should be taken to vote on the floors.  Trump said that it would be useless to do so because the Dems won't vote for it.  He said several times he's willing to shutdown the government over wall funding.

Here's the video:

(12-11-2018, 01:56 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Did you just see the press conference with President Trump, VP Pence, Speaker of the House Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer?  That was an interesting public debate.

I hadn't seen it until I watched your video. That was great! Ahahahahaha! Go fuck yourself, trump. Man, 2019 is going to be so interesting!

For some reason, watching Pence cracked me up. Not one word, just sorta shifting in his chair the whole time.

Pence looked like he had been embalmed and carefully positioned for life-like realism.

(12-11-2018, 12:22 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(12-11-2018, 09:37 AM)Fry Guy Wrote: Why is it that you have focused exclusively on Republicans and Trump family and associates

...because they are the people in the news, because they are the people calling the shots, because they are the people with all the power. That's why.

No, this is not true.

Even with the house races time and time again you were cheering and celebrating Democrats and smearing Republicans, even when there was no incumbent.

The power in Washington is Mueller who until recently was free to investigate everyone close to Trump with no care for his original mandate and the Stalinist attitude of show me a person and I will find you a crime.

He has been protected by virtue of what the appearance of removing him may look like, even though the basis of his appointment seems to be bullshit and the more we learn of bias towards Trump and bullshit evidence to get the FIBA warrants and undergird the Special Counsel appointment.

Whilst Hillary broke rules blatantly she skates. As to lying to the FBI and Congress, the list is long and those on the Republican side of the aisle get charges and the Lois Lerner, James Clappers, and the like skate.

No, it is not about who is in power or calling the shots.

So what is the REAL reason?

  Sometimes I just can't do this with you. 

It seems that the best thing to say to get out of things on Capitol hill is "I don't recall" It works for quite a few perps.