Kansas Crimson

hilarious

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:43 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:29 pm
There's a whole big, interesting paper published on the turnover of Trump's staff here: https://www.brookings.edu/research/why- ... residents/

Do you even read what you link to?

Serious question.

And also, working in an administration is nothing like choosing a private sector employer to pursue.

And you have more experience working in the public sector, and specifically in an administration, than twocoach does?

He knows a guy.

seahawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:57 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:43 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:29 pm
There's a whole big, interesting paper published on the turnover of Trump's staff here: https://www.brookings.edu/research/why- ... residents/

Do you even read what you link to?

Serious question.

And also, working in an administration is nothing like choosing a private sector employer to pursue.

And you have more experience working in the public sector, and specifically in an administration, than twocoach does?

Kinda?

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:13 am He knows a guy.

I know, right?

I happen to agree with DC. He's right for pointing out that there are people on/from the "left" who accuse those who work for Trump (and Trump) as being Nazis. There have been documented instances of those who work for Trump being chased down in restaurants, people's kids being harassed, etc.
Some shameful and terrible stuff.
When you add the fact that it's Donald Trump who you're working for/with, would you want the job?
BOTH DC's reasoning and the fact that it's Donald Frickin' Trump that you are working for/with are the reasons why we have people such as Jared Kushner as a "senior advisor", a half asleep (and sometimes 100% asleep) former brain surgeon as the head of HUD, Betsy DeVos as the Secretary of Education, etc.
I have said too many times, anyone who wants to be an elected official and even work for an elected official probably has very good intentions but they have to be out of their fucking minds.
For all the glory there may be, there is often 10x more criticism, blame, degradation, etc.
I, and I have to assume almost everyone else would say - no thanks. At least the wise ones would.

My wife interned for a Senator in college. Thought it was good experience and thought it would look good on her resume. After law school, having that on her resume hurt her because people assumed her political ideals aligned with the senator, when they did not. I guess they did not realize that she wanted to do the internship, would only be able to intern for one of the two senators in her own state, who were both of the same political party.

I can only imagine that that is 100X worse for someone working for Trump. Unless you're planning to retire soon, it's a pretty dumb move to work for the trump administration assuming you ever want another job, because of the assumptions people will make.

Some of you just want to argue with DC for the sake of arguing.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:49 pm My wife interned for a Senator in college. Thought it was good experience and thought it would look good on her resume. After law school, having that on her resume hurt her because people assumed her political ideals aligned with the senator, when they did not. I guess they did not realize that she wanted to do the internship, would only be able to intern for one of the two senators in her own state, who were both of the same political party.

I can only imagine that that is 100X worse for someone working for Trump. Unless you're planning to retire soon, it's a pretty dumb move to work for the trump administration assuming you ever want another job, because of the assumptions people will make.

Some of you just want to argue with DC for the sake of arguing.

So this was always a hazard of this type of job, just as other jobs have their own hazards that ebb and flow based on who specifically you work for. Got it.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:53 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:49 pm My wife interned for a Senator in college. Thought it was good experience and thought it would look good on her resume. After law school, having that on her resume hurt her because people assumed her political ideals aligned with the senator, when they did not. I guess they did not realize that she wanted to do the internship, would only be able to intern for one of the two senators in her own state, who were both of the same political party.

I can only imagine that that is 100X worse for someone working for Trump. Unless you're planning to retire soon, it's a pretty dumb move to work for the trump administration assuming you ever want another job, because of the assumptions people will make.

Some of you just want to argue with DC for the sake of arguing.

So this was always a hazard of this type of job, just as other jobs have their own hazards that ebb and flow based on who specifically you work for. Got it.

But you don't get it. You just spent two pages arguing that it was only about not wanting to work for Trump.

Because just like DC said, many of these people barely interact with the president, so "working for him" really isn't likely a very strong deterrent for a lot of these positions. What is a deterrent, is the assumption after the fact, that you're a Trump disciple and all that that entails, when in reality you may have just been someone who was qualified for, and wanted that job.

I'm not even arguing that that is the only factor at play here. But it certainly is a big factor, and to argue against it is silly. And to now try to move the goal posts is even worse.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:04 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:53 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:49 pm My wife interned for a Senator in college. Thought it was good experience and thought it would look good on her resume. After law school, having that on her resume hurt her because people assumed her political ideals aligned with the senator, when they did not. I guess they did not realize that she wanted to do the internship, would only be able to intern for one of the two senators in her own state, who were both of the same political party.

I can only imagine that that is 100X worse for someone working for Trump. Unless you're planning to retire soon, it's a pretty dumb move to work for the trump administration assuming you ever want another job, because of the assumptions people will make.

Some of you just want to argue with DC for the sake of arguing.

So this was always a hazard of this type of job, just as other jobs have their own hazards that ebb and flow based on who specifically you work for. Got it.

But you don't get it. You just spent two pages arguing that it was only about not wanting to work for Trump.

Because just like DC said, many of these people barely interact with the president, so "working for him" really isn't likely a very strong deterrent for a lot of these positions. What is a deterrent, is the assumption after the fact, that you're a Trump disciple and all that that entails, when in reality you may have just been someone who was qualified for, and wanted that job.

I'm not even arguing that that is the only factor at play here. But it certainly is a big factor, and to argue against it is silly. And to now try to move the goal posts is even worse.

If Trump wanted these positions filled, they would be filled.

And "only" about not working with Trump is your word added, not one I ever typed.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:06 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:04 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:53 pm
So this was always a hazard of this type of job, just as other jobs have their own hazards that ebb and flow based on who specifically you work for. Got it.

But you don't get it. You just spent two pages arguing that it was only about not wanting to work for Trump.

Because just like DC said, many of these people barely interact with the president, so "working for him" really isn't likely a very strong deterrent for a lot of these positions. What is a deterrent, is the assumption after the fact, that you're a Trump disciple and all that that entails, when in reality you may have just been someone who was qualified for, and wanted that job.

I'm not even arguing that that is the only factor at play here. But it certainly is a big factor, and to argue against it is silly. And to now try to move the goal posts is even worse.

If Trump wanted these positions filled, they would be filled.

And "only" about not working with Trump is your word added, not one I ever typed.

God you're so stupid and illiterate that it's not even worth my time to argue with you.

Me adding the word "only" was a concession if anything, one to get you to shut the fuck up. I think there are multiple factors at play here. DC presented one, which I think is a significant factor, you argued, now for 3 pages, that it isn't.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:20 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:06 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:04 pm
But you don't get it. You just spent two pages arguing that it was only about not wanting to work for Trump.

Because just like DC said, many of these people barely interact with the president, so "working for him" really isn't likely a very strong deterrent for a lot of these positions. What is a deterrent, is the assumption after the fact, that you're a Trump disciple and all that that entails, when in reality you may have just been someone who was qualified for, and wanted that job.

I'm not even arguing that that is the only factor at play here. But it certainly is a big factor, and to argue against it is silly. And to now try to move the goal posts is even worse.

If Trump wanted these positions filled, they would be filled.

And "only" about not working with Trump is your word added, not one I ever typed.

God you're so stupid and illiterate that it's not even worth my time to argue with you.

Then stop arguing with me.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:32 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:20 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:06 pm
If Trump wanted these positions filled, they would be filled.

And "only" about not working with Trump is your word added, not one I ever typed.

God you're so stupid and illiterate that it's not even worth my time to argue with you.

Then stop arguing with me.

It's just that the things you say are so dumb, and so often completely wrong, it's difficult to just leave those statements unchecked. I worry that someone else with a comparable lack of sense as what you regularly exhibit might read them and believe them to be true, not knowing how utterly nonsensical most of the bullshit you spew out here is.

Hopefully you can appreciate how difficult dealing with someone such as yourself is for the rest of us that are not simpletons.

Another afternoon spent being called a dumbass by PhD and Tdub. This place rocks..

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:53 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:49 pm My wife interned for a Senator in college. Thought it was good experience and thought it would look good on her resume. After law school, having that on her resume hurt her because people assumed her political ideals aligned with the senator, when they did not. I guess they did not realize that she wanted to do the internship, would only be able to intern for one of the two senators in her own state, who were both of the same political party.

I can only imagine that that is 100X worse for someone working for Trump. Unless you're planning to retire soon, it's a pretty dumb move to work for the trump administration assuming you ever want another job, because of the assumptions people will make.

Some of you just want to argue with DC for the sake of arguing.

So this was always a hazard of this type of job, just as other jobs have their own hazards that ebb and flow based on who specifically you work for. Got it.

Yes, it's "always" been a hazard. It's probably if not definitely exacerbated when it's Donald Trump.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:56 pm Another afternoon spent being called a dumbass by PhD and Tdub. This place rocks..

Imagine how we feel.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:00 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:56 pm Another afternoon spent being called a dumbass by PhD and Tdub. This place rocks..

Imagine how we feel.

You poor thing.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:06 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:04 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:53 pm
So this was always a hazard of this type of job, just as other jobs have their own hazards that ebb and flow based on who specifically you work for. Got it.

But you don't get it. You just spent two pages arguing that it was only about not wanting to work for Trump.

Because just like DC said, many of these people barely interact with the president, so "working for him" really isn't likely a very strong deterrent for a lot of these positions. What is a deterrent, is the assumption after the fact, that you're a Trump disciple and all that that entails, when in reality you may have just been someone who was qualified for, and wanted that job.

I'm not even arguing that that is the only factor at play here. But it certainly is a big factor, and to argue against it is silly. And to now try to move the goal posts is even worse.

If Trump wanted these positions filled, they would be filled.

And "only" about not working with Trump is your word added, not one I ever typed.

If Trump wanted them filled people such as you and I would be critical of his appointments no matter who filled the roles. Agree or disagree? I could be 100% wrong but my guess is there aren't a lot of QUALIFIED and EXPERIENCED people chomping on the bit.
Therefore, while I don't feel he's better off not filling them, it seems as if he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't fill them.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:02 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:00 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:56 pm Another afternoon spent being called a dumbass by PhD and Tdub. This place rocks..

Imagine how we feel.

You poor thing.

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:04 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:06 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:04 pm
But you don't get it. You just spent two pages arguing that it was only about not wanting to work for Trump.

Because just like DC said, many of these people barely interact with the president, so "working for him" really isn't likely a very strong deterrent for a lot of these positions. What is a deterrent, is the assumption after the fact, that you're a Trump disciple and all that that entails, when in reality you may have just been someone who was qualified for, and wanted that job.

I'm not even arguing that that is the only factor at play here. But it certainly is a big factor, and to argue against it is silly. And to now try to move the goal posts is even worse.

If Trump wanted these positions filled, they would be filled.

And "only" about not working with Trump is your word added, not one I ever typed.

If Trump wanted them filled people such as you and I would be critical of his appointments no matter who filled the roles. Agree or disagree? I could be 100% wrong but my guess is there aren't a lot of QUALIFIED and EXPERIENCED people chomping on the bit.
Therefore, while I don't feel he's better off not filling them, it seems as if he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't fill them.

Disagree. I had heard of only a small fraction of the people on the lists of people hired and fired for a bunch of roles so clearly them being appointed to those positions isn't resulting in some huge wave of public outrage towards anyone who takes any role in Trump's administration.

If the person who is appointed is say, oh, I don't know, a former exec at ExxonMobil, and the role they get appointed to is to head the EPA then yeah, I might complain about it. I have no problem with good hires such as General Kelly as Chief of Staff. There have just been so many absurd choices with obvious conflicts of interest that it seems like they all get complained about.