But what does Past Donald Trump think about changing chiefs of staff?
You know how people say they're their own worst critic? Here it'd be true if it weren't for all the people that literally want to assasinate him
Reminds me of dead ringers.
Sean Sean Sean.... There is somebody pretending to be me tweeting bad things about me....
Petulant
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-alaska-us-senator-obamacare-repeal-bill-healthcare-republican-vote-lisa-murkowski-a7862341.html ]Trump set to punish Alaska[/url]
Presumably he's now not going to give permits to drill in the ANWR - every cloud
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/investing/alaska-arctic-oil-drilling-trump-anwr/index.html
Here's a nice depressing read about what's happening to the actual machinery of government..
**** me sideways! 😯
I've just spent the last hour or so reading the whole of that article, and it's one of the most terrifying things I've read in God knows how long.
There are global consequences involved, and the overgrown toddler 'running' the country just sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "lalalalalalalalalala..."
Someone, just impeach the sonofabitch now, for the sake of the civilised world.
Can you summarise it for us?
Summary?
The Trump teams going in into departments and agencies have no clue, don't want to listen and probably just want to get rid of the leftie/snowflakes/scientists/thinkers before they start complaining about the idiotic ideas being put forward.
Totally unfit and unprepared for the task of running a government, underprepared and unwilling to accept help from outside of the circle.
Zero real understanding of what a government actually does and why it's needed.
See my post about Air Force one.
Basically none of the Trump camp have security clearance to take over the running of the DOE. The policies they want to put in place ignore practicalities like nuclear inspection and safety. Budgets being cut, or proposed in safety, investment, research.
They are wilfully ignorant of what is required, i.e. it's not just that they don't know, they don't [b]want[/b] to know as that knowledge will expose their ignorance. Those approaching the DOE didn't want to know about how to run it but wanted to know the names of members of staff who were supporters of policies the Trump camp disagreed with.
It's definitely worth reading. In fact make the time to read it.
Be afraid, very afraid.
summary?
in the states a change of administration means a change in a lot of the civil servants (unlike here where it's just ministers and a handful of special advisors who leave and a new bunch come in. So in the US the months between the election outcome and inaurguration of a new pres are crucial for the new team to get up to speed, and learn how the system works. Much of what government does is not that political but can be pretty technical - combating the spead of zika virus say, or securing supplies of nulear materials.
So in the energy dept they'd cleared office space for the new senior team, to ensure a smooth transition. And no one came...
That Vanity Fair article is a depressing read. Who knew the DOE could be so hard?
The thing missing from summaries above is that the Trumpettes dont want to speak to the career civil servants because, obviously they cant be trusted and therefore they have no direction hence nothing is getting done.... And nuclear safety (amongst other things) is at risk...
The handover is always problematic but Trumpettes either haven't sufficient security clearance or don't turn up. And don't ask questions If they do...
Can you summarise it for us?
As Trump might say...
That VF article is fairly damning - appears they're hell-bent on 'draining the swamp' including the closure of Government departments they have no clue actually what they do - things like nuclear safety!
And yet, people just seem to be letting it happen, ridiculous! I'm not sure why this isn't headline news rather than a vanity fair article.
Last Leg just reported that Trump has fired Priebus
Surely there must be a finite supply of arseholes. There seem to be no jobs on offer, just a turn to take at being blamed for something, slandered and then fired.
Maybe this whole thing is really a conspiracy to bankrupt SNL by exhausting their costume and wig budget.
And yet, people just seem to be letting it happen, ridiculous! I'm not sure why this isn't headline news rather than a vanity fair article.
Headline news is restricted by space and time. There isn't room in the news for all this shit, news papers don't have enough pages and news bulletins don't have enough time.
Scaramucci's wife divorcing him over his naked ambition to be in trumps government. Wtf he must have been a bastard before but this is too much.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/anthony-scaramucci-deirdre-ball-donald-trump-latest-divorce-ambition-a7866626.html ]see ya[/url]
I wonder how many Americans realise just how much Trump has cost them personally in security and travel:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344369-guarding-trumps-mar-a-lago-club-has-cost-taxpayers-66-million-report
That link is slightly misleading, it's $6.6million, not $66million, but even so, Trump is costing the US Coastguard a huge amount of money, when it's over a billion dollars behind in funding.
Now, if only he'd go for a stroll one dark night and stumble across a large 'gator... 😈
I do wonder if there was a lot of threats of resignations if he stayed in post.
Utter chaos, it's cringeworthy just to watch.
I suspect the bannon sucking his own cock comment was probably a big factor
[img] 
[/img]
You couldn't make it up-
Outgoing White House press secretary Spicer confirmed Scaramucci's departure in a statement on Monday afternoon."Anthony Scaramucci will be leaving his role as White House Communications Director," Spicer said. "Mr. Scaramucci felt it was best to give Chief of Staff John Kelly a clean slate and the ability to build his own team. We wish him all the best."
Spicer still around- there's now a leavers queue. 😆 😆
Spicer still around- there's now a leavers queue. 😆
Nah, working his notice, he wants a good reference...
I love that Trump is tarnishing the reputation of every rightwing scumbag that latches onto him
The question is does the sacking of Scaramucci delight the media or the opponents? 😆
Nope, the question is how much governmental functionality remains in the WH.
The US appears to be flying on autopilot. Which to be fair is sound testament to some robust bureaucratic institutions operating in the face of such top level incompetence.
Chewkw - member
The question is does the sacking of Scaramucci delight the media or the opponents?
Trump down to 39% for the first time with that Trump-favouring Rasmussen poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jul31
EDIT: Wait, what, he really [b]has[/b] been sacked? I thought that was just a joke from a combination of Newsthump and Chewkw, but no, it really does seem to be true. 😯
Do you foresee a collapse of govt like in Iraq or the middle east or are people over exaggerating? 😀piemonster - Member
Nope, the question is how much governmental functionality remains in the WH.
You have just contradicted your first point don't you think so with robust bureaucracy? That's the problem innit. The system now challenges (refuse to change as in all entrench bureaucracy) the democratic leadership. Nobody elect the system but the system is trying to dictate to the people. A bit like the "rise of the machine" (The Terminator) innit.The US appears to be flying on autopilot. Which to be fair is sound testament to some robust bureaucratic institutions operating in the face of such top level incompetence.
oldnpastit - Member
Chewkw - member
The question is does the sacking of Scaramucci delight the media or the opponents?Trump down to 39% for the first time with that Trump-favouring Rasmussen poll:
39% what does that mean? Media and opponents' delight? 😛
Outgoing White House press secretary Spicer confirmed Scaramucci's departure in a statement on Monday afternoon."Anthony Scaramucci will be leaving his role as White House Communications Director," Spicer said. "Mr. Scaramucci felt it was best to give Chief of Staff John Kelly a clean slate and the ability to build his own team. We wish him all the best."
Hilarious if true, unfortunately The Guardian is reporting Huckabee-Sanders said that.
Chewkw - member
39% what does that mean? Media and opponents' delight?
Here you go Chewy:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Sixty-one percent (61%) disapprove.
So, almost two-thirds of US voters think he's useless.
Scaramucci was just a poor boy from a poor family. So spare him his life from this monstrosity.
Easy come, easy go.
oldnpastit - Member
So, almost two-thirds of US voters thing he's useless.
Does that mean media and opponents' delight?
Remember the poll before the Presidency election All pointed against President Trump winning? That's poll for you. Absolutely meaningless. 😆
Now back to the question. Media and opponents delight? 😛
Are you delighted with the surprise? 😆EDIT: Wait, what, he really has been sacked? I thought that was just a joke from a combination of Newsthump and Chewkw, but no, it really does seem to be true.
Scaramucci was just a poor boy from a poor family. So spare him his life from this monstrosity.
Easy come, easy go.
Ratings high, ratings low
How bannon gets his blows, doesn't really matter to me,to meeeeee
Back to the question. Media and opponents delight?
As usual I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but...
Given that Scaramucci had only been in the job for ten days and had already provided the media with juicy stories about his messy divorce and calling Bannon a * sucker. I'd imagine they will be sorry to see him go, but safe in the knowledge that further cluster*ery will undoubtedly follow.
Political opponents: well who knows? I imagine they enjoy watching the Trump administration flounder around, but worry for the actual country.
I am delighted. He was clearly an ass and his only role in the whole trump (Saga/Debacle/Catastrophe/Impeachment proceedings - delete as appropriate) was to highlight how inept the whole operation is.
It seems you're also delighted
chewkw - Member
😆
Turns out everyone can agree on something. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Come and have a hug Chewy.
GrahamS - Member
Back to the question. Media and opponents delight?
As usual I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but...
Not a trick question. 🙄
Do you think the media and the opponents(political etc) are delighted with the sacking?
That's a bit of a contradiction don't you think so? Flounder & worry for the country? 😆Political opponents: well who knows? I imagine they enjoy watching the Trump administration flounder around, but worry for the actual country.
Counter question chewkw: do you still stand by [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/donald-trump/page/290#post-8590860 ]your analysis[/url] that Trump will serve [i]at least[/i] eight years, possibly more?
Never underestimate the stupidity of the people, but I just can't imagine who would still be lining up for these Whitehouse jobs after seven more years of this.
Superficial - Member
I am delighted. He was clearly an ass and his only role in the whole trump (Saga/Debacle/Catastrophe/Impeachment proceedings - delete as appropriate) was to highlight how inept the whole operation is.
I am not sure the true reasons behind the sacking but like all jobs you need to fit in. If not then there is a reason to part company.
So are you delighted because he is a political opponent or simply because he could not fit into his job?
Actually, I was just about to catch up with politics from all over the world, so not sure what to make of Scaramucci except listened to his two interviews.It seems you're also delighted
Does that mean you will now agree with me? 😆Turns out everyone can agree on something. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Come and have a hug Chewy.
GrahamS - Member
Counter question chewkw: do you still stand by your analysis that Trump will serve at least eight years, possibly more?
Yes. Eight years.
The reason is that the world politic is changing and heading for alternative direction. The current (democrat/liberal/leftie etc) political ideology has stagnated and no longer fit the future ... it is the beginning ... 😛
Both sides? Who?Never underestimate the stupidity of the people, but I just can't imagine who would still be lining up for these Whitehouse jobs after seven more years of this.
[quote=chewkw ]like all jobs you need to fit in. If not then there is a reason to part company.
impeachment, woo!
Aside from all the nonsense and fireworks is Trump actually doing anything, doesn't seem like any work is getting done.
Yes. Eight years.
Ah so you are pulling back slightly from your previous prediction of a [i]minimum[/i] of eight years.
Both sides? Who?
Do I need to explain this? Trump's "side" - the one with the revolving door of appointments and reported gaps in the administration staff.
He's watching Fox news, tweeting and playing golf - what more do you expect him to do?
is Trump actually doing anything
Well his threats of Border Adjustment Tax have managed to persuade Foxconn to promise to build a $10 billion factory in Wisconsin (in exchange for just $3 billion in tax subsidies). [i]#maga[/i]
So that's something I guess. Bringing low-paid soon-to-be-automated production line jobs back to America for only a few billion dollars.
Assuming of course that Foxconn actually follow through this time. [url= https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/253330-foxconn-claims-itll-build-factory-wisconsin-dont-hold-breath ]Unlike previous promises. [/url]
Another one bites the dust, but hey were not talking about Russia any more.
His first day was almost classic for the Trump team, clueless, misguided, inept and self destructive.
Opponents and the media will probably be a little disappointed as he could have done some serious damage to the Trump team given time and space to work his magic.
At least now we can add the gop to his list of opponents.
Yeah good move by Kelly ditching that slimeball, wtf was Trump thinking? but damage done
Be interesting to see where the Meuller investigation goes, Kelly was ready to resign over Comeys firing...
Maximum allowable so whatever that is. i.e. eight or more (is more than eight years possible? I read ten is possible but due to technicality ... )GrahamS - Member
Yes. Eight years.
Ah so you are pulling back slightly from your previous prediction of a minimum of eight years.
Style of leadership might not be to the liking of everyone but he is elected to hammer the administration. That's why people like him as he is not one of them (traditional politician). Therefore, people deliberately elected President Trump to do the job. Not because of the level of intelligence the people have, but the reasons they have to hammer politics. 😆Do I need to explain this? Trump's "side" - the one with the revolving door of appointments and reported gaps in the administration staff.
he is elected to hammer the administration
But the people he is "hammering" here are the people he hired?!?
Did people really elect him to hire people to top jobs then fire them ten days later? That's not being anti-administration. That's being a terrible boss.
And hammering the administration leads to the absolute hell described in the Vanity Fair article.
No point hammering the administration if the country suffers as a result.
He was elected to hammer his name own administration???
That's insane
Crazy thing is he is hammering his own appointees, blaming then for his littany of failure in this past 6 humiliating months...
Wonder what John Kelly's pre-nup says
GrahamS - Member
he is elected to hammer the administration
But the people he is "hammering" here are the people he hired?!?
He has his reason to fire someone which is fine after all it is also like hiring someone on job probation like any other jobs.
People elected President Trump so they trust him over anyone else. Therefore, how he manages the administration team is up to him so long as President Trump is on the people's side. He can fire as he sees fit.Did people really elect him to hire people to top jobs then fire them ten days later? That's not being anti-administration. That's being a terrible boss.
Terrible boss? Not such thing as terrible boss to everyone. Horses for courses. Remember board of directors hiring Mr tough guy CEO as the new CEO to turn the company around? You are seeing that happening now but in this case both the shareholders and the board of directors are the same people that appoint the CEO ... guess who they are. 😛
Who do you think he should hammer?kimbers - Member
He was elected to hammer his name own administration???
. That's why people like him as he is not one of them (traditional politician).
Optimistically only 39% like him at best. So we can even call that bit a failure. The majority of his sackings/resignations have come from people he appointed. One cannot drain a swamp without first filling it - or is that something to do with fish in a barrel?
mikewsmith - Member
Optimistically only 39% like him at best. So we can even call that bit a failure. The majority of his sackings/resignations have come from people he appointed. One cannot drain a swamp without first filling it - or is that something to do with fish in a barrel?
Are you saying people don't like President Trump yet still voted for him? If that is the case it says a lot about the political or economical situation in Murica. People feel it. When ordinary people feel life is hard they want change for the better. Looking around they are in catch-22 with traditional politicians, then there is President Trump ... they know who they want - an outsider that is President Trump.
Like any large organisation, you either get a new CEO to turn things around or you continue to let the organisation festers with the detached. Would you prefer the CEO to fire the top management or to fire low rank and file? 🙂
Well.... I am disappointed. Was hoping for the Mooch roadshow to keep on rollin' - he seemed like a very entertaining prospect.
Politics aside.... Scaramucci seems like a particularly awful human, you really do have to question the judgement of whoever thought hiring him was a good idea in the first place.
How is a president who can't keep his own house in order supposed to achieve anything?
Comprehension 101...
Less than half the people who voted did so for Trump.
Of that less than half a number most likely voted against Clinton rather than for Trump, a number are Red or Nothing voters who would vote for an orange fake tanned bad wig wearing idiot if it said Republican after his name - thoy would draw the line at a woman or person of colour though.
Of those that voted for Trump over the course of his complete inability to pass any legislation through the houses, his time in court, the scandals that follow him and the ongoing suspicion many are walking away - that is right they don't see him as the saviour. In 6 months he has achieved nothing.
. That's why people like him as he is not one of them (traditional politician).
Would you prefer the CEO to fire the top management or to fire low rank and file?
Given he has fired the ones he hired, wants to fire another one he hired it shows massive misjudgement and a lack of ability in the CEO - in this case the shareholders would be calling for his head which many are.
It seems as he is such an impotent president in terms of legislation they are letting him take his entire family down with him when the charges are finally laid.
batfink - Member
How is a president who can't keep his own house in order supposed to achieve anything?
Do you expect things to turn better at the flick of a switch?
He is doing just fine considering he is only six months into the job as an outsider to turn things around. Do you expect the entrenched politicians on both houses would give ways?
If you elect someone to go with the flow of current politics then nothing will change, and the life of ordinary people will suffer even more as the rot set in.
🙂
Do you expect things to turn better at the flick of a switch?
He is doing just fine considering he is only six months into the job as an outsider to turn things around. Do you expect the entrenched politicians on both houses would give ways?
OK I know you're just trying to troll here but you do get that most of the problems are from either things he has done without taking any advice - travel bans being one or from people he decided to appoint into the White House - himself - remember this is a giant of business, he knows people, he knows how to make deals, he knows how to hire the right people... total failure
Established politicians are giving him a hard time because he makes no sense.
As for the idiots that still follow him did somebody have the stat the 30 odd% of them didn't believe his kids had met with the Russians after they admitted it and published the emails to say they did??
Wake up and smell the coffee as they say.
[quote=chewkw ]Like any large organisation, you either get a new CEO to turn things around or you continue to let the organisation festers with the detached. Would you prefer the CEO to fire the top management or to fire low rank and file?
I was under the impression that is was common business practice for an incoming CEO only to fire those people in top management who had been appointed by his predecessor. Presumably opinion is divided on the subject?
[quote=mikewsmith ]In 6 months he has achieved nothing.
Good point - it could be worse.
mikewsmith - Member
Given he has fired the ones he hired, wants to fire another one he hired it shows massive misjudgement and a lack of ability in the CEO - in this case the shareholders would be calling for his head which many are.
If you work with a company with incompetent senior management team that makes your life harder, would you prefer the incoming CEO to hammer them to make your life better? Or do are you going to defend the senior management that has taken advantage of you all these years?
Shareholders are on the new CEO's and in fact they are the one that put him there, so who do you think will survive the restructuring?
Besides, shareholders will wait for a while to see the result before deciding. Six months to decide on a CEO? No very large organisation take such illogical action without consulting the numbers i.e. money. In this case jobs and stability for people.
How do you measure competent as CEO?It seems as he is such an impotent president in terms of legislation they are letting him take his entire family down with him when the charges are finally laid.
Letting him take his family down or attempting to undermine the President's family?
Presumably opinion is divided on the subject?
I think the problem is that the venn diagram of people who want to work for Trump and people who shouldn't be allowed to work in the white house or any branch of government has a lot of overlap, possibly only one circle.
If you work with a company with incompetent senior management team that makes your life harder, would you prefer the incoming CEO to hammer them to make your life better? Or do are you going to defend the senior management that has taken advantage of you all these years?
OK lay off the koolaid for a bit, He is firing the people he hired - how is that sensible or good practice or even close to what you are babbling about?
Letting him take his family down or attempting to undermine the President's family?
Jarred "I forgot about meeting those people when I filled out the highest security in the land forms" Kusner
Ivanka "Made anywhere but America" Trump
Donald "Just like his Daddy" Trump Jnr
[img]
[/img]
They are undermining themselves and him. Question is when he throws the first one under the bus and how that goes down
He is firing the people he hired
He has made bad bad decisions.
How can someone with such bad judgement be president?
President Trump was a "CEO" and leader of his Trump organisation before becoming President.mikewsmith - Member
OK I know you're just trying to troll ...
The description of the way organisation is managed or turn around is exactly the way President Trump is using now to manage Murica. His style is different to many and the association with his past experience and current Presidency can be considered significant if not the same.
It is not up to him to consult others what he can or cannot do. It is up to others to advice or to prevent President Trump from doing what he wants. All within the permitted rules. You disagree with his direction has nothing to do with the legality of what he can do or cannot do. If he is in breach then the is punished by the rules like everyone else.... he has done without taking any advice - travel bans being one or from people he decided to appoint into the White House - himself - remember this is a giant of business, he knows people, he knows how to make deals, he knows how to hire the right people... total failure
You might not like my answer here but you need to see it works both ways. Most senior management will gang up on the new CEO if they feel their jobs are under threat. Therefore, that is expected.Established politicians are giving him a hard time because he makes no sense.
If they breach the rules then proof that in court or prosecute them in law otherwise shut the door up.As for the idiots that still follow him did somebody have the stat the 30 odd% of them didn't believe his kids had met with the Russians after they admitted it and published the emails to say they did??
I like the coffee I am drinking. 😆Wake up and smell the coffee as they say.
Do you expect things to turn better at the flick of a switch?
He is doing just fine considering he is only six months into the job as an outsider to turn things around. Do you expect the entrenched politicians on both houses would give ways?If you elect someone to go with the flow of current politics then nothing will change, and the life of ordinary people will suffer even more as the rot set in.
[img] 
[/img]
Apologies for posting that AGAIN, but it's what you seem to be fundementally struggling with Chewy "things aren't working quite right..... lets hire a toddler, that'll make things better"
You might not like my answer here but you need to see it works both ways. Most senior management will gang up on the new CEO if they feel their jobs are under threat. Therefore, that is expected.
Who appointed Flynn?
Who appointed Sessions?
Who appointed the new Fandango king?
Who appointed Spicer?
Who appointed Priebus?
Are you trying to tell/teach President Trump, The President of USA, The former head of Trump organisation, how to manage? 😯mikewsmith - Member
OK lay off the koolaid for a bit, He is firing the people he hired - how is that sensible or good practice or even close to what you are babbling about?
oldnpastit - Member
He has made bad bad decisions.
How can someone with such bad judgement be president?
Is there such thing as perfection? 😯
batfink - Member
Apologies for posting that AGAIN, but it's what you seem to be fundementally struggling with Chewy "things aren't working quite right..... lets hire a toddler, that'll make things better"
Nice illustration I like. 😆
Horses for courses as in President Trump's management style. 🙂
Are you trying to tell/teach President Trump, The President of USA, The former head of Trump organisation, how to manage?
Given how much he liked to tweet about how bad Obama was doing - you know always off playing golf etc. he made himself fair game.
And yes I'd have serious concerns if each of the new appointments turned out to be fired for being incompetent, a security risk or breaking laws. It would flag up that the CEO was clueless as to how to research and hire and had a very poor ability to judge character or interview people.
As for the trump organisation it specialised in bankruptcy, dodgy deals and shifting money along with outsourcing most of it's supply chain to cheaper countries so not the most admirable qualities.
Horses for courses as in President Trump's management style.
No..... absolutely not "horses for courses". That implies that he's deliberately selecting the most effective style to fit the circumstances - whereas he's actually doing the opposite.
Unless you'd like to point to some of his successes?
mikewsmith - Member
Who appointed Flynn?
Who appointed Sessions?
Who appointed the new Fandango king?
Who appointed Spicer?
Who appointed Priebus?
You point being?
Nobody's job is secured during the "organisational" restructuring process. 🙂
You point being?
Hahahahaha..... ok.
batfink - Member
No..... absolutely not "horses for courses". That implies that he's deliberately selecting the most effective style to fit the circumstances - whereas he's actually doing the opposite.Horses for courses as in President Trump's management style.
No, it is the right approach. People voted for President Trump to do that precisely in order to hammer the political elites. 🙂
Six months to turn a nation around? 😆 Even a CEO of a large organisation cannot do that within six months of appointment, let alone an outsider President trying to turn around an entire nation with entrenched politicians trying to wrack havoc at the new President. 😛Unless you'd like to point to some of his successes?
Six months to turn a nation around?
Not turn around.... just name a couple of modest successes. You would expect him to achieve SOMETHING in six months, yes?
It's ok... I'll wait here while you type
I hear he's changed the curtains in the oval office....
This CEO comparison is bizarre chewkw.
I get the "shaking things up" metaphor but if a controversial new CEO was appointed to a major international company, and they hired a whole new team of senior management, who they said were the best people, and they then fired those same people while dragging the company through a series of scandals and PR disasters, then what would happen?
They would get a vote of no confidence from the board.
No one would be congratulating them on a job well done.
mikewsmith - Member
Given how much he liked to tweet about how bad Obama was doing - you know always off playing golf etc. he made himself fair game.
Is it against the law for the President to tweet? Go get him at his tweet coz nobody is holding anyone back. Welcome to the new world interweb. 😆
I am sure there are checks in place with the paranoid Murica.And yes I'd have serious concerns if each of the new appointments turned out to be fired for being incompetent, a security risk or breaking laws.
Above your pay grade to tell CEO how to run an organisation. CEO hires and fires senior management as s/he sees fit.It would flag up that the CEO was clueless as to how to research and hire and had a very poor ability to judge character or interview people.
You are describing most business organisations. Also most entrepreneurs will in their business career face some sort of difficulties. 😀As for the trump organisation it specialised in bankruptcy, dodgy deals and shifting money along with outsourcing most of it's supply chain to cheaper countries so not the most admirable qualities.
Above your pay grade to tell CEO how to run an organisation. CEO hires and fires senior management as s/he sees fit.
No mate..... CEO answers to the board. If Trump was behaving like this as a CEO - he would have been booted out long ago.
Anyway, the CEO analogy was yours. I think Graham was arguing that it wasn't valid.