Forum menu
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?