Yes, there is no staff shake up that can fix it. The problem is Trump himself:
at every turn, the president has acted as if he has something to hide. Whether he actually does is an open question, but his obsession with the unfairness of the Russia story — and his refusal to credit claims that the Russians meddled in the election, or to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin — is a perpetual smoke machine causing people to think there’s got to be a fire somewhere. The author of Donald Trump’s problems is first and foremost Donald Trump.
So what’s my point? Simply: The author of Donald Trump’s problems is first and foremost Donald Trump. It’s fine to point out the excesses of the Democrats and the media. There’s certainly ample reason to criticize his staff. It’s understandable that Trump supporters think the “establishment,” the “swamp” or the “Deep State” have undermined him — because they have.
But Trump is not a victim. He is the hamster spinning the wheel in the massive Rube Goldberg machine that is the spectacle of presidential dysfunction.
And an ignorant emotional 71-year-old man with attention-deficit disorder and no impulse control isn’t going to change.
That is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time.
And this is the dumbest (anonymous, and that’s saying something) comment I’ve had at this site.
a perpetual smoke machine
The source of this smoke is not Trump. It would make absolutely no difference if Trump or his team responded perfectly.
The press knows there is no significant Russian story, but that doesn’t matter. Actual crimes are not being investigated because they aren’t about Trump.
Witnesses to Haitian relief crimes mysteriously die before giving testimony, but “if it bleeds, it leads” doesn’t apply when the agenda never goes beyond ‘get Trump…’ at any cost… by any means… regardless of lack of evidence… regardless of the media admitting there is nothing to the story… regardless of fourth amendment protections…
The media is playing this giant game of “when did you stop beating your wife?” because they think it will work and people that are supposed to be adults are going along with it.
Regardless of any detail that might be true, the big picture is not only fake news but with evidence that Podesta and company lead in its manufacture after Hillary’s loss.
Going after Trump honestly would be fine. This witch hunt has not even the least association with an honest search for truth.
How is anyone suppose to defend themselves from being accused and convicted when evidence is not required?
Remember the game, seven degrees of separation? I could make anybody a conspirator with anybody else by playing that game. Especially by ignoring actual conspiracy which we have solid evidence of with regard to the left.
It’s not about finding truth and never has been.
It would make absolutely no difference if Trump or his team responded perfectly.
It would make a huge difference. Most of Trump’s problems are entirely of his own making. He does everything possible to look guilty. And you’re continuing to be delusional.
look guilty
So that’s the standard now? Not being guilty doesn’t matter?
Who’s the responsible party here? The guy that looks guilty or the people that keep beating a dead horse for 300+ days without any evidence of any crime?
Not being guilty and not appearing to be guilty are both important. Trump is behaving stupidly.
Let’s stipulate. So what?
Is the Pareto Principle now invalid?
The tide is changing.
Trumps manner is far from ideal. But he has something sorely lacking on the anti-democrat side for too many years: He Fights! And when he fights he forces the opposition to expose themselves for what they are for anyone whose eyes are open to see the truth. And for that I’m willing to accept the less than ideal manner.
Why should he be confrontational with Putin? Previous US Presidents have been quite chummy with China and it’s not like they haven’t done similar things like, you know, invade theirs neighbors claiming it was part of their empire in the first place. Places like Tibet and Vietnam. If anything the Russians are necessary as a counter-weight to China until the Indians can step up to the plate properly. While China and Russia now have an agreement, dating to the time of the fall of the Soviet Union, regarding their borders just take a look at the borders of the Qing dinasty in their largest extent and their current borders, plus China’s typical jingoistic posture when in a position of strength, and I think the inevitable will happen eventually.
If you look at what Obama and Trump have done in Asia as a China containment policy things start to make more sense.
I think a lot of these issues go away if you ignore most of what he says. We have known this for a long time. The fact that the media absolutely refuses to ignore what he says, indeed is fixated on it, doesn’t mean I have to be.
On the contrary: when the media, or conservative pundits, do not take this into account my reaction has become, You guys are clueless; I don’t listen to your blather. Boy Scouts!! = Hitler Youth!!
Some issues would remain, but 95% of the article, and any article about him, is about violations of this principle. Follow this principle and you see this for what it is: a somewhat childish president (unfortunately) but no big deal.
I see it now. Bob Hope addressing 70,000 green shirts at the 73 Jamboree in Idaho was actually a conservative fascist plot.
A Scout is… trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.
Is obviously a perfectly disguised dog whistle for totalitarianism. How could we have possibly missed this?
Trump’s critics try to take him literally but not seriously. But some of us understand that so much of what he says is serious but not literal.
So Mike, you’re saying that the guy has twitter tourettes, and we should accommodate his disability by ignoring what he says directly to the public?
Huh. There are two types of human beings today.
1) Normal people. They speak privately, sometimes tell off-color jokes and stuff. In private they are willing to try out all kinds of ludicrous possibilities, some of which might even be good ideas. They occasionally speak publicly, at a graduation or something, and then they prepare their words carefully. There’s a line in their minds drawn somewhere in between.
2) Politicians. They only speak publicly. They train themselves never to go “off-mike”, as they might get caught. They need to start this regimen when they are very young, as the internet never forgets. (Some Democrats can plead that they were foolish when they were young and were the head of the local KKK etc., now they know better and they’re really sorry. This option is not available to Republicans.) When they do speak publicly, they say very little of substance and nothing that is not scripted. Their every word is designed around the listeners, and they live in fear that one set of listeners will hear about what they said to a different demographic of listeners.
When it comes to the workplace, all of us know that the second type of people should be kept off your team. They will never contribute good ideas for fear of criticism, and they will spend all their time and effort positioning themselves rather than getting any work done.
For some reason beyond my understanding, the American people assumes that only the second type are fit to run our country. Opposition research involves looking for _one thing_ the other guy said that isn’t in place. Hypocrite! Racist! Sexist! He doesn’t know the material – look, he forgot this! Got him, devastating; unfit to serve.
Well, I for one have had enough. Point to something Trump said in a prepared speech. Generally people are surprised: “Whoa, he sounded presidential. Why doesn’t he do that all the time?” He doesn’t do that all the time because he has made it clear that he isn’t trying to be a Politician. His private conversation is private and he does not care much what people think about what he said, or if it’s inconsistent or whatever, same as Normal People. His twitter feed is part of what he considers to be his own turf. Even his campaign speeches, mostly unscripted, are like that to some extent; he’s just talking.
This is a _selling point_ of his, and a lot of Americans like it.
I hasten to add that this doesn’t mean that I am good with everything he’s doing. He can be Normal People and still a baby; I think he would accomplish a lot more if he weren’t. But on this particular issue, yes, to the extent that the media searches for Gotcha Points in his twitter feed they are lifting him up and pushing themselves down in the eyes of a good chunk of the American public.
Before I went to Vegas for the first time, I read up on all the gambler’s strategies to make sure I wouldn’t lose too bad. At a Black Jack table, I was dealt two tens. The dealer had five. So, I did what the books I had read said to do in that situation: I split ’em.
This caused howls of outrage and derision from the other players, who had been taught never, ever to split tens. One lady in particular got angry with me. I had upset the mojo of the deck, or some such, and I would pick up the cards that otherwise would have been hers. Despite the fact that her odds were no better or worse if I took cards or not, the prevailing view seemed to be that I had committed a sin, a veritable macroaggression, against the other players, and the gods of the deck would frown upon it and make us all losers.
I had gone against the rules. The rules had been codified and laid down in stone since time immemorial based on ancient wisdom. One does not go against the rules.
I think of that incident, and see basically the same thing happening here. Trump is not playing by the rules. It doesn’t matter whether they are good rules or bad rules. It does not matter if they have no impact whatever on the outcome of the game. They are the rules, and if you don’t play by them, the gods of the deck will frown upon us, and we are all lost. Or, so you would infer from all the caterwauling.
Meh. I’ve just tuned it out. I’m not sure if it was a conscious decision in the beginning, but Trump is clearly just yanking their chains now. It keeps them off-balance, and unfocused on mounting any effectual opposition against him. They are too busy spluttering about the rules to pose any threat.
” Trump is clearly just yanking their chains now.”
No, I’m sure it’s much more likely that a guy who’s made a fortune four times, including in what’s always described as “the cutthroat world of New York real estate” is actually an ADHD moron, like our host thinks, and that it’s totally not stray voltage or a clever attempt to direct people’s attention where he wants.
People want to imagine everyone to be an idiot savant where simply human covers most of the bases.
There are the rules meant to be broken and then there is Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Although on one hand our own Ken Anthony has self-administered a wedgie over Jeff Sessions, and on the other hand a person cannot talk about Mr. Trump doing anything wrong with our esteemed host Rand who thinks everything Mr. Trump does is wrong, I am really bothered with the shade being thrown on Jeff Sessions.
The deal with Mr. Trump is that he was supposed to be going around saying all of his outrageous things and insulting people, that is, insulting others than his own people. That he didn’t know the first thing about governing wasn’t supposed to matter because he delegated that, appointing first-rate people — VP Mike Pence the governmental version of a corporate Chief Operations Officer, Jeff Sessions to enforce the laws that are on the books, Rex Tillerson to not get into an atomic war with Russia, Tom Price to straighten out the health care mess.
Is one of the “rules” that you should not freak out your hard-core political base? Then Mr. Trump is breaking that one.
Sessions is not a bad guy, just the wrong guy for the current environment. The left wants to play by two sets of rules. It’s actually codified in Alinsky tactics.
The American people are tired of the asinine rule that the good guys are required to finish last.
Trump is fighting. That’s an unpardonable sin with the left. Our host seems to imagine he would succeed where every republican in the past 100 years has failed. I know Rand would do better. But he would probably get the Evan Mecham treatment for trying to be fiscally responsible.
I don’t think that everything Trump does is wrong. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn occasionally.
I want Sessions gone too. Asset forfeiture? Legalized robbery by the government. Necessary for the War of Drugs which is also a bad idea but Sessions is all behind it.
Alone among Trump’s appointment, Sessions wants to do everything I don’t want done.
I grant you (to paraphrase Abe Lincoln) that President Trump fights.
My concern is that he is turning his fight on his own people. And if he is going to fire an (Attorney) General for not showing enough fighting spirit, fire the man and move on, not this. And if he is going to fire his Attorney General, who is he going to find out there who has more fighting spirit? Is he going to appoint Anthony Scaramucci to that position, and how is going to get him past even the Senate Republicans?
“My concern is that he is turning his fight on his own people.”
Yet, Sessions shows no signs of leaving. Consider the possibility that Trump and Sessions themselves hatched this imbroglio:
Trump: We need something to divert attention. Any ideas?
Sessions: Sure thing. Attack me, boss. They’ll be so flummoxed they won’t know up from down.
Granted, it reads a little like this:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/president-reagan-mastermind/n9509?snl=1
But, everyone keeps thinking Trump is a dolt on a losing streak, and then he wins again.
That he didn’t know the first thing about governing wasn’t supposed to matter because he delegated that, appointing first-rate people
This is a good criticism. You can’t run an administration like the apprentice. Trump should be picking people who already won the competition.
How could Trump not have known that Sessions might recuse himself?
He also can’t let people hang around who are not effective. Trump doesn’t have the luxury of sycophants like Eric Holder, Lynch, or anyone else from the last administration who were willing to break any law for the greater good.
But when Obama first became President, his staff was framed as a team of rivals who would argue about the best policies. They all turned out to be yes xem. Trump has a team of rivals and the media says its just chaos.
They are the rules, and if you don’t play by them, the gods of the deck will frown upon us, and we are all lost.
This is true and those who make the rules and those who enforce the rules only hold some people to the rules. Some people, like Obama, Hillary, and Alec Baldwin, are allowed to break the rules all the time. This is because of their status.
Trump used to have that status too. He could act however he wanted while he was in the entertainment industry, because he was acting like all the other entertainers. No one got bent or dis-invited him from partying with the Clintons or any other protected status people.
But now, Trump has lost his protected status and all of the rules, plus some new ones, must be enforced against him. Trump’s response, “Who are you to make the rules? The only rules that matter are the rules the people who voted for me care about.”
This is just Trump following another precedent set by Obama. The only difference is there was no shadow army of government workers working to stop Obama and while Trump has two opposition parties, it turns out Obama had two loyal parties.
For all the hand wringing over Trump and Sessions; I’ll just note:
A Republican majority in the House and Senate have failed to pass an Obamacare Repeal, including GOP senators willing to vote for repeal under Obama, but not when Trump would actually sign it.
Despite no evidence of collusion with Russia, the investigation of Trump continues. Despite evidence of Clinton collusion with DoJ and interference in an investigation of illegally sending classified email to unsecure systems and personnel, Sessions hasn’t seemed interested in investigating.
If collusion to influence a national election is bad and/or illegal (is it?); then where is the federal investigation in CNN rigging debates? Obama interfering in elections in Egypt, Israel, or most recently as a private citizen, France?
But hey, let’s yell “Trump” and look pass the GOP failure to follow through on promises and failure to prosecute crimes. Great job National Review! We get it. It’s easier to be a complainer rather than lead, follow, or get out of the way. We got it earlier. That’s why we sent you Trump.
Leland, you’re being blinded by substance. You should be wringing your hands over style. Try to get your priorities straight kid!
Did Murkowski, Collins ever vote for repeal?
Didn’t the Repubs lose Senate seats? Yes, they were “exposed” in terms of the large number of Republican seats up for election, but didn’t the GOP lose some ground?
This changes the facts on the ground beyond “Republicans are a bunch of wimps.”
Leland: “including GOP senators willing to vote for repeal under Obama, but not when Trump would actually sign it.”
Paul: “Did Murkowski, Collins ever vote for repeal?”
Is there some value to the question other than there is no simple yes or no answer since one did and one did not? Is their a point in ignoring the fact that 6 GOP senators just voted against something that their party campaigned on nationally less than 12 months ago, and they themselves were happy to vote for when there was nothing at stake in doing so?
Paul: Didn’t the Repubs lose Senate seats?
Didn’t Democrats lose seats in the House and Senate after voting for Obamacare, including eventual complete loss of control over Congress despite the coattails of a popular President and supposedly popular key legislation, namely Obamacare? Yes they did.
I’m not calling them wimps. They are liars that need to be primaried out of their seats. Or if somehow brave, then come out clearly in favor of socialized medicine and explain how their socialist position fits within the Republican Party. I have respect for Democrats delivering what they campaign on; even if I don’t agree on the legislation.
There’s a bunch of people I know that sat out of the 2006 national election simply because it became obvious that Republican majorities were just as happy with pork. 10 years later, appears nothing has changed with Republican majorities, so do you think the people will act differently this time? I think the answer is “Yes they will, which is why you have Trump”.
This is why people are upset. The GOP leadership has been lying to its base. Failure theatre is real.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/07/26/eric-cantor-republicans-obamacare-donald-trump/
Asked if he feels partly responsible for their current predicament, Cantor is unequivocal. “Oh,” he says, “100 percent.”
He goes further: “To give the impression that if Republicans were in control of the House and Senate, that we could do that when Obama was still in office . . . .” His voice trails off and he shakes his head. “I never believed it.”
He says he wasn’t the only one aware of the charade: “We sort of all got what was going on, that there was this disconnect in terms of communication, because no one wanted to take the time out in the general public to even think about ‘Wait a minute—that can’t happen.’ ” But, he adds, “if you’ve got that anger working for you, you’re gonna let it be.”
It’s a stunning admission from a former member of the party leadership—that the linchpin of GOP electoral strategy for the better part of a decade was a fantasy, a flame continually fanned solely because, when it came to midterm elections, it worked. (Barring, of course, his own.)
I’d much prefer a politician that makes an honest effort and achieving what the voters want rather than one that puts a lot of effort into lying really well.
The GOP didn’t think they’d get caught because they actually supported Hillary to keep the charade going until retirement.
Despite no evidence of collusion with Russia, the investigation of Trump continues.
The tragically funny thing is that the Democrats were most likely colluding with Russia and that this will not be investigated by the special counsel.
Indeed, Wodun. I think that simple fact at this time is why Trump is tweeting about Sessions, and why I agree with him. The Democrats and GOP supporters assumed the tweet meant Trump just wants to fire him. I read the tweet as trying to light a fire under Sessions ass and start announcing investigations of crimes for which we have evidence of an actual crime.
For starters, the Imran Awan case has been discussed for months, and it was only this week, as the mofo was about to flee the country that the FBI finally decided to act. His wife already fled the country, and the hard drives were smashed, as if someone knew the FBI was coming for them. And that’s a conspiracy case that most of us only learned about this year, yet we also knew about for months.
Then there is the litany of stuff already mentioned in regards to obvious DNC and media collusion to affect the results of an election. If that stuff is illegal and needs a special prosecutor; then where is the special prosecutor? Mueller’s mandate isn’t to look into DNC and media collusion, so he’s not the special prosecutor for it. The only one moving on that front is Bernie Sanders, who I think has a reasonable cause for fraud. And we now know Hillary and Huma both dealt with classified information in non-authorized systems that would get any military personnel, including transsexuals, thrown in jail. Do I need to bring up unmasking of private citizens that were also illegally spied upon?
But hey, let’s complain about Trump wondering why his AG is sitting on his butt. By this time in the Obama Administration, his AG had Operation Fast and Furious up and running providing untrackable firearms to Mexican drug cartels and gang members for the purposed of increasing crime, finding the guns, and claiming “ah ha, US gun ownership is a problem”. I understand why Sessions isn’t investigating this, since he already did as a Senator and couldn’t do more than hold Holder in contempt. Still Holder is laughing at Sessions weakness right now and I suspecting telling friendly appointed bureaucrats how to continue to mess with the spineless Sessions.
What do you think about moving Sessions to homeland security creating a hole Trump must fill. Thus getting rid of both Sessions and Mueller without himself having to fire either?
I think that Sessions would be a disaster in any position, from the standpoint of civil rights.
Agreed, but he’d be less of a problem at HS focused on immigration while saving Trump from the heat of just firing him.
Senator Graham says he will introduce legislation next week which will require judicial review if the administration attempts to fire special counsel Mueller.
Recall that Mueller does not serve at the pleasure of his superiors, but can only be dismissed for certain, specific causes. If the legislation becomes law, then the administration would have to convince a panel of judges that their reasons for dismissing the special counsel “meet the statutory definitions”.
I’d expect such a bill to easily pass in the Senate, likely with a veto-proof majority. I don’t have a feel for how well it would do in the House.
Why would Trump sign it?
If it’s not attached to something else that Mr. Trump wants, then he won’t, hence my remark about the likely veto-proof majority from the Senate. Besides their bipartisan respect for Mueller, they would also see this as an insurance policy for their former colleague Mr. Sessions, as it would remove an incentive for Mr. Trump to get rid of him.
With the House I am less sure, though they did vote 419-3 to approve the humiliating Russian sanctions bill, which imposes new sanctions on Russia and limits Mr. Trump’s ability to relax existing sanctions. This is the sort of this you do to a President from a opposing party, not the leader of your own party.
This is the sort of this you do to a President from a opposing party, not the leader of your own party.
Trump beat the GOPe in the election but many of them were already in the trenches.
My concern is that [Trump] is turning his fight on his own people.
His fight has always been with his own people. THAT is why the voters chose him. How many times have the people been sold a bill of goods? We’ve been told how great these people are going to be and as soon as they are in they betray the people that put them there.
The rule has become, “Don’t EVER give the job to anyone that wants it.”
Rand once argued that Trump ran for president because of the perks. What perks? He had a great life before running and nothing but headaches since.
I would argue that he’s making a sacrifice because he sees how the politicians have turned our country into a toilet.
Whatever provable faults Trump has offer no contrary evidence against this assertion. Impute all the bad motivations you want against him, his actions have been consistent with his rally promises. How does that compare with Pournelle’s accurate depiction of the GOP?
Listening to Trump may only confuse some. Get over it and pay attention to his actions. Which will include getting the wrong people, but then replacing them until he gets the right people. People that will actually get the agenda the generally conservative Trump voters want.
Trump is getting things done that nobody else could have and fighting the liars that pretend to care about the will of the people just long enough to stab them in the back. That would be everyone because that’s how corrupt America has become.
This does not mean I worship Trump which is a deeply insulting assertion. This just means I like many others see the reality that is. We have been betrayed for so long by the typical political leaders that we think it can’t be any other way.
It takes a clown to prove us wrong. As in king Lear… nobody here but a jester and a fool.
Rand once argued that Trump ran for president because of the perks.
I’m pretty sure I never argued that. I’ll be (mildly) interested in whatever insane support he provides for this insanity.
But Ken remains delusional.
I would argue that he’s making a sacrifice because he sees how the politicians have turned our country into a toilet.
OK, so what “sacrifice” is Trump making? I haven’t noticed him spending any less time on the golf course. He does whatever, and leaves a trail of people in the wake of his disaster, just like the Clintons.
Because (you know) he’s (just like the Clintons) a corrupt Democrat. The Dems are just annoyed because his corruption was turned on them, sort of, but not seriously.
It takes a clown to prove us wrong.
OK, I’m glad that Ken recognizes that he voted for a clown. Not sure why he thinks that it’s a good thing to do that, and defends it, but it’s what Ken does.
You know what, Ken?
I’ll take your (Democrat) God King seriously when his Justice Department actually goes after Democrat corruption. Until then…
But Trump is not a victim. He is the hamster spinning the wheel in the massive Rube Goldberg machine
I still maintain that it doesn’t matter what Trump does in terms of how the media portrays him. Even if he was perfectly messaged, he would always be portrayed in a way to fit whatever the DNC narrative is. This is very effective because confirmation bias means a totally ordinary thing can be twisted to support the larger narrative.
However, Trump does take some actions with intent. Whether the outcomes are as desired or not I don’t know. But I don’t think his intent has been to change his actions to make the DNC media happy, because that will never happen.
Simply: The author of Donald Trump’s problems is first and foremost Donald Trump.
This is true but not for a different reason than the author states. Trump’s problem is that he is Trump, aka the image created by our media known as Trump. We are not getting coverage of a person but of a caricature. If Trump had different hair, would he not get made fun of? Of course he would.
Why wouldn’t Trump tweet to pierce the bubble of the alternate reality that so many people live in?
I’ll take your (Democrat) God King seriously when his Justice Department actually goes after Democrat corruption.
In all seriousness, this is why I have faith in your integrity. Because no matter how much we disagree (which overall is not really that much) I know with absolute certainty that you’re one of the good guys.
I promise you, he will. Just realize how huge the stonewall is and will be. This is why, aide and comfort to the enemy (no matter how fact based) has to be confronted. I will.
Trump should be picking people who already won the competition.
Easier said than done in a world full of liars. He could certainly make a better effort at this, but he’s actually doing better than some of the conservative stalwarts of the past. Trump said he would not have chosen Sessions if he knew he would recuse himself (which as an innocent, he didn’t have to.) I know how difficult it is to believe, but Trump often says the truth… but just as often, like his grab pussy line in a terrible way. Does anybody disagree that powerful people get away with things. That’s all Trump was saying if you analyze what he said carefully.
I’m glad that Ken recognizes that he voted for a clown.
I didn’t vote for him Rand. Surprise! To vote for any of them would be to abandon my principles. To keep my integrity, which for some odd reason I find important, all I can do is annoy from the sidelines.
I don’t communicate very well, but my perception is not distorted as much as some others. One of my strongest assets is truth does persuade me more than self interest. I’m a thousand times more interested in truth than self image… or the image others try to pretend to be.
When Trump expresses his insecurities with “I’m the greatest…” the reason I give him a pass (along with many other flaws) is because those are just squirrels. He’s in truth, much more than a blind squirrel and that needs to be acknowledged and supported. This is just the basic way you train a person to be the person you want them to be (an always unachievable goal, but worthy regardless.)
I have never defended his clownishness. I just perceive more than the image. There are a lot of things I wish he’d stop, but doing so means he’d need another way to achieve the positive aspects. I don’t see otherwise how, because the enemy knows how (and is) winning the conventional fight.
You have to agree (only a moron or liar wouldn’t) that Trump is fighting unconventionally. Time will tell regarding how effective he will be. I suspect its effectiveness will be surprising (and not be complete… we have a long way to go because of the narrative distortion. So many people know things that just aren’t so.)
“You have to agree … that Trump is fighting unconventionally.”
That’s why we elected him. The GOP establishment insists on fighting by Marquess of Queensbury rules when the opponent is street fighting. Trump has upset their delicate sensibilities. They would rather go down to defeat with honor than sully themselves fighting the rabble.
What “sacrifice” is Trump making?
Oops. I meant to respond to this (although it seems self evident?)
First we need to turn off the world’s reality distortion field. Instead of Trump, imagine the person is yourself.
You’re a billionaire (No Rand, I don’t care if he is or not. Didn’t I just say take Trump out of the picture?)
What kind of magical blinders do you have to be wearing not to see the negative aspects of going from self interested billionaire to public office surrounded by enemies?
By surrounded I’m thinking.
Reagan went through four chiefs of staff, Bush three, Clinton four, Bush two, and Obama five.
Turnover isn’t unusual, but they usually serve longer. Previous ones had been well entrenched in politics. Kelly has certainly been around but not as part of a party structure, similar to Trump. Will Kelly be able to serve Trump in this role?
Getting rid of those who don’t perform well is fine, but there is only so much time. I was hoping Trump would be better at the selection process. Overall, not bad but these are some high profile replacements.
high profile replacements
That would seem to be the logical place to fix first. Things become stable faster (counter-intuitively) by quickly replacing the top tier early.
This should also result in more turn-over in the lower tiers which should be avoided until the top is established.
Draining the
swampcesspool may take decades if ever. It may even require wholesale readjustment of attitudes that are currently deeply entrenched.Trump is making a killing off his weekend golf trips to his resorts. What a sacrifice ….
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/09/report-trump-continues-profit-lavishly-golf-club-membership-fees
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/
I’m happy to see any businessman succeed (being president doesn’t require he give up his businesses. Conflict of interest requires a more direct connection like… donate to my foundation and I’ll make a law that benefits you.)
Otherwise every politician on the planet would be guilty of a conflict. The fact is, doing stuff for constituents is actually their job description. The problem is when they demand direct payment (which is why so many indirect methods exist.)
This is only a media issue because they don’t like Trump.
while Trump has two opposition parties, it turns out Obama had two loyal parties.
This is much bigger than two men. This is actually how the world has always worked with insiders and outsiders. Clinton and Bush jr. becoming fast friends is not any kind of anomaly.
Trump is a semi-outsider which allowed him to squeeze in. He truly was a blue collar billionaire. During his rallies his relationship with the blue collar was made stronger (even if you consider him a con man that’s still true.) The fact that he has tried to keep his promises is evidence of that. That his base remains loyal during a shitstorm of negative reporting is further evidence.
An outsider may fail to fix things, but nobody else would have even tried.
I’ll take your (Democrat) God King seriously when his Justice Department actually goes after Democrat corruption.
Just realized another point about this needs to be made.
Trump really isn’t allowed the type of collusion the dems do regularly. The DOJ is supposed to be independent (as is the FBI, IRS, etc.)
Trump really needs to learn how to collude to be a true democrat.
Once Sessions is gone (or actually does his job) that would be a semi-reply to taking him seriously.
You should stick with Trump being inept as Occam’s explanation. I expect that appearance in this case will change and prosecutions will occur (but probably not with Sessions.)
Saying he would not have hired Sessions as AG if he knew he would recuse himself probably has no Machiavellian component. Occam would suggest he’s just being himself (honest/inept/lighting a fire/whatever)