Mulvaney OUT??????

Is this true? Now? How have I missed this all day. No posts on it yet?
I can't talk about it cuz my wittle bwain is blowing up, but you guys feel free to go ahead.

No links because you can find it everywnere.

Mulvaney out. What the hell?

A bit late with the times? Trump tweeted this yesterday, Mulvaney new role will be, "United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland".

The same tweet where Trump announced Mark Meadows as his White House Chief of Staff.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Mulvaney had a habit of implicating Trump in whatever scandal he was supposed to defend him from.

That’s not exactly Mulvaneys fault either. Defending Donald Trump is like defending a murderer in court that keeps stabbing the jurors. Waving his hands around trying to rationalize the blood.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Mulvaney had a habit of implicating Trump in whatever scandal he was supposed to defend him from.

That’s not exactly Mulvaneys fault either. Defending Donald Trump is like defending a murderer in court that keeps stabbing the jurors. Waving his hands around trying to rationalize the blood.

In the words of a famous lawyer.."If it seems like a reach, it's enough to impeach."

Or was it "We'll blame the Senate, when they acquit him in a minute."

Anyways it was something along those lines.

a reply to: Arnie123

Yeah, that's what I'm asking, how did I miss this. Is there already a thread about this. I scrolled back quite a ways and didnd't find one. If I'm wrong again and there is one Hey mods redirect us ah, me, please.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Mulvaney had a habit of implicating Trump in whatever scandal he was supposed to defend him from.

That’s not exactly Mulvaneys fault either. Defending Donald Trump is like defending a murderer in court that keeps stabbing the jurors. Waving his hands around trying to rationalize the blood.

IMPEACH ORANGE! I'm certain there's something in the Constitution about orange!

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Mulvaney was acting chief of staff. His position was temporary.

why does this matter?a reply to: TerryMcGuire

a reply to: CitizenZero

Yes, he was only acting. But four acting chiefs in three years? Doesn't sound very stable to me. According to Trump, he was suppose to know all the best people, have a nose for hiring only the finest yet here he is, three years later still fumbling around looking for those ''best people''.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

They’re in Washington. I imagine the pool (swamp?) of employees is quite limited.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I suppose that I may be old fashioned, that I may be conservative and hold to antiquated concepts of organizational structure. As I have never risen to the heights of corporate management and wealth I may be entirely groundless in my assumptions that consistency of action and personnel could be key to successful management. It may be that businesses such as Trump owns and has run for decades do not hold to these strategies. That it is common practice to just hire people to run things for you and if things are going well to keep them in their positions.

Trump claims that things are going well for him and the nation. Yet, we see that he has run to four different people to be his chief of staff in the short three years he has been in office. You know that old adage, if it ain't broke?

So sure, there is some chance that this is a very advanced management style that Trump us utilizing, that he has some secret power to run things himself beyond the necessity of people who have experience in the jobs they hold. Sure that is possible.

However what else is possible is that Trump is a bozo, an inefficient goof ball who has no idea what he is doing and needs not experts or competent people beneath him but rather only people who are for what ever reason loyal to him and will follow his aberrant dictatorial commands with little to no question.

And I guess it comes down to which of these two scenarios we hold to that determines if Muvaney's ouster matters at all. Possibly you come down on one side of that equation while I come down on the other.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: CitizenZero

Yes, he was only acting. But four acting chiefs in three years? Doesn't sound very stable to me. According to Trump, he was suppose to know all the best people, have a nose for hiring only the finest yet here he is, three years later still fumbling around looking for those ''best people''.

Perhaps they're only "best" until they get into office?

However... back on topic... the new chief of staff Mark Meadows comes from the Freedom Caucus like Mulvaney did. Unlike his predecessors, he won't be given the "acting" designation: www.keranews.org...

We'll see how long he lasts. Any bets? I'd say he'll probably be on until November (yes, I'm hoping for Trump's defeat.)

a reply to: CitizenZero
Nope. Trump is an international businessman of great accomplishment or so he says. He has contacts all over the world. He make friends easily, as we have seen him claim from meeting dictators once or twice. So I don't think that his great web of efficient and capable management and business contacts would be limited to the petty bureaucrats who frequent Washington DC.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: scraedtosleep

So sure, there is some chance that this is a very advanced management style that Trump us utilizing, that he has some secret power to run things himself beyond the necessity of people who have experience in the jobs they hold. Sure that is possible.

It's called 3D chess, 4D chess, or any other variant of that.

However what else is possible is that Trump is a bozo, an inefficient goof ball who has no idea what he is doing and needs not experts or competent people beneath him but rather only people who are for what ever reason loyal to him and will follow his aberrant dictatorial commands with little to no question.

That'd be my guess, too.

And I guess it comes down to which of these two scenarios we hold to that determines if Muvaney's ouster matters at all. Possibly you come down on one side of that equation while I come down on the other.

We can sit here in the same corner. I'll hold down the liberal side, you can hold down the conservative side.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

But four acting chiefs in three years? Doesn't sound very stable to me.

Always a tweet.


Smdh and

three years later still fumbling around looking for those ''best people''.

Only the best people.

However what else is possible is that Trump is a bozo, an inefficient goof ball who has no idea what he is doing and needs not experts or competent people beneath him but rather only people who are for what ever reason loyal to him and will follow his aberrant dictatorial commands with little to no question.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: CitizenZero

Yes, he was only acting. But four acting chiefs in three years? Doesn't sound very stable to me. According to Trump, he was suppose to know all the best people, have a nose for hiring only the finest yet here he is, three years later still fumbling around looking for those ''best people''.

I kinda like the approach.

Why do these people need to be career politicians?

Times change.

If you're the man for the job today, congrats its yours.

If that changes next week and someone is better.. pack your bags

... or we could stick with the Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, Schumer model and just remain in for life!

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: scraedtosleep

I suppose that I may be old fashioned, that I may be conservative and hold to antiquated concepts of organizational structure. As I have never risen to the heights of corporate management and wealth I may be entirely groundless in my assumptions that consistency of action and personnel could be key to successful management. It may be that businesses such as Trump owns and has run for decades do not hold to these strategies. That it is common practice to just hire people to run things for you and if things are going well to keep them in their positions.

Trump claims that things are going well for him and the nation. Yet, we see that he has run to four different people to be his chief of staff in the short three years he has been in office. You know that old adage, if it ain't broke?

So sure, there is some chance that this is a very advanced management style that Trump us utilizing, that he has some secret power to run things himself beyond the necessity of people who have experience in the jobs they hold. Sure that is possible.

However what else is possible is that Trump is a bozo, an inefficient goof ball who has no idea what he is doing and needs not experts or competent people beneath him but rather only people who are for what ever reason loyal to him and will follow his aberrant dictatorial commands with little to no question.

And I guess it comes down to which of these two scenarios we hold to that determines if Muvaney's ouster matters at all. Possibly you come down on one side of that equation while I come down on the other.

So if Trump only surrounds himself with people loyal to him and will follow his aberrant dictatorial commands with little to no question why is it they aren't loyal and don't follow his aberrant dictatorial commands with little to no question? If they did he wouldn't have to replace them so often.

The main difference no one sees is that if you do not perform you are gone. Like a business. I could care less if he had new staff every 6 months like my local restaurants cycle managers as long as they get the job done.

Also, most who did a good job for him move onto other positions, work for a PAC or working on his re-election campaign.

Sometimes those we choose are not the best fit and he changes it. In the past it was appointment for favors and even if they did not perform who cared as long as the money was flowing in the right direction. That is not happening anymore.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

This topic is ignored for the most part by conservative members and I wonder why. The few that have chosen to address it have relied upon the standard '' the boss has the right'' argument''. And of course I guess that argument is true, the boss does have the right. However that cannot begin to cover the issue that his is not just a boss but the POTUS who promised only the best people nor the possibility of incompetency.