TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

The Islamic world is pretty big - and I don't see any consistent policy toward it.

And there shouldn't be. We really need to stop talking about an "Islamic World". It is no more a monolith than the "Christian World" is at this point. We cannot engage Pakistan the same as we engage the Saudis. Jordan, which is fairly moderate and modern, is another whole kettle of fish again. Then there's Shi'a majority states like Iran which are different again. As we've seen with the Qatar situation, even the Sunni majority Arab states around the Arabian Peninsula aren't a monolithic block. If anyone thinks we need to treat all Islam-majority countries the same, then they should argue the same for Christian-majority countries. Yet, I doubt anyone would treat Brazil the same as the US or Russia. Yes, there needs to be consistent foreign policy, but it needs to be consistent across all countries, not just ones based on a particular faith or philosophy.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
Yes - though I'm not sure that is an important policy

Nice shift of goal-posts!

Graeme Decarie said:
except in hyping popular fears, and encouraging the bigotry of Americans.

Policy or not he is very consistent in this department.
 
@Redbaron.

Excellent knowledge displayed, no doubt stemming from your time spent in the United States. Consider the office of press secretary, for example.

The office has only existed since 1929, so knowledge of presidencies before Herbert Hoover's is unnecessary - although I assure you that I have studied the careers of pretty much every US President starting even before my days as an undergraduate in which I studied a fair bit of American history and have continued to read widely in the area since. (Right now I'm reading a fascinating biography of Jefferson Davis, who qualifies, I suppose, as a sort of American President - of the Confederacy at least.) Back to the point, though. Sean Spicer served 182 days as Trump's Press Secretary. A few served less than that. Some because they were interim or acting while a new press secretary was being sought (such as George Stephanopoulos under Clinton, who served unofficially at the start of Clinton's term until Dee Dee Myers was hired formally for the job. Stephen Early was acting press secretary for Truman for two weeks in 1950, and Jonathon Daniels served a month and a half in 1945, but his term spanned the death of Roosevelt and the succession of Truman, so it made sense that Truman would bring in his own choice.) Some were "official" but came into the job at the end of their president's term and so served briefly until their president left office (such as Jake Siewert, who closed out George W. Bush's term.) The only Press Secretary officially in the position who served for a shorter period of time than Spicer and left well before his president's term of office ended was Jerald terHorst, who served a month as Gerald Ford's Press Secretary at the start of the Ford administration - although Ford's accession to the presidency was somewhat sudden and unique as a result of Richard Nixon's resignation.

As far as White House Chief of Staff is concerned, the position has only existed since 1961. Reince Priebus served 188 days. Of "official" chiefs of staff only James Baker served a shorter term, and - again - because his president (George H.W. Bush) was at the end of his term and left office. Otherwise, there was only one acting White House Chief of Staff who served a shorter term as far as I know - that was Pete Rouse under Obama in 2010-2011, while Obama was searching for a successor to Rahm Emmanuel. Between 1946 and 1961 the equivalent position was Assistant to the President. None served as short a term as Priebus. Before that dates and terms get a little murky. The closest equivalent from George Washington through to Franklin Pierce (so, 1789-1857) was Private Secretary to the President. (Although presidents of that time actually had very little staff other than the private secretary, so he wasn't really "chief" of anything or anyone except maybe the household staff of the residence I suppose, although there may have been a chief butler to do that, and whether anyone on the residence staff would have reported to the private secretary, who was more political, is questionable.) In any event, as I said, exact dates of appointment, resignation, etc. in that period are a bit murky, but the only one who it seems could have served a shorter term than Priebus would have been Nicholas Trist under Andrew Jackson in 1831. After Pierce, starting with James Buchanon in 1857 through to 1946 the position was Private Secretary to the White House. Again, dates of appointment and resignation, etc. are a bit murky, but under Andrew Johnson it's possible that both Reuben Mussey and Edmund Cooper (1865 and 1866 respectively) were in the job for a shorter period of time than Priebus, although with Johnson there was again the unexpected succession to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination and the general turmoil of the country after the Civil War plus several attempts to impeach Johnson and remove him from office.

As for Communications Director, the position was created in 1969 by Richard Nixon, and ain't nobody going to beat Scaramucci's 10 days in office (and I don't think he was actually even officially in the position - he was fired before he was on the payroll) nor has any president accomplished Trump's record of three Communications Directors in the first six months of his presidency (actually, four - if you count Scaramucci's unpaid "term" and Spicer having the position twice - the second time acting until Scaramucci was hired.)

Edit: For the record, the fourth was Mike Dubke who served 88 days (a record for Communications Directors in the Trump administration, from March 6 - June 2.)

I would say that any reasonable review of the history of presidential staffs would conclude that your position is entirely correct. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton (even while dealing with impeachments) and Richard Nixon (even while dealing with Watergate, possible impeachment and his subsequent resignation) didn't face such chaos as Trump has faced with his White House staff.

Trump has off course managed to keep Ivanka and Jared with him in the White House, although such nepotism in key staff positions makes it difficult for them to either jump ship or be removed. That kind of open and overt nepotism is also rare. The only example I can find in a key staff position is Henry Huntington Harrison, who was Private Secretary (again, a predecessor to the position of White House Chief of Staff) to his great-uncle, William Henry Harrison, who served a month as president in 1841 until he died. (One could mention Robert Kennedy, but as his brother John's Attorney General he wasn't White House staff, but rather a Cabinet member, confirmed by the Senate and not merely hired by the president.)

So, Redbaron, I think any reasonable person with a basic knowledge of American history would concur with you that there's no other U.S. President who's had this much trouble retaining staff in a wide variety of appointed positions, even though there have been many troubled presidencies.

If there's anyone who's done the research and would like to either refute or supplement my findings, I'd of course be open to correction.

That's a valiant attempt Steven, I feel, to defend @Redbaron's words. It's only too bad that he didn't suggest specific offices and eras (except for Trump's presidency) in his statement, "the high rate of people coming and going, and the total chaos resulting from it that has been exemplified by this presidency? Never." He has yet to substantiate that statement by the way.

While one may not like a given politician, in my honest opinion it is very unwise to make such a statement and not substantiate it.
 
Somehow, I'm neither surprised, nor disappointed.
Nor should you be. Answers can't be given when the person being asked is generally ignorant of the subject being discussed.

Anyway, unless someone can refute the facts of my post, which basically supports your position, then anyone who wants to argue your point should probably remain quiet, slinking away with their tail between their legs.
 
...
Plus it sounds like he realizes that he is a sinner and thus tries to limit temptation. Obviously cares aboot others and his society.

I assume there's some facetiousness in this comment I'm not getting. What is it about orthodox Christians and their apparently OVERWHELMING desire to do bad things?

It sometimes feels that, without the local free methodist or pentecostal church next door, we'd all be in danger of hordes of rapists, murderers, sex addicts and adulterers, held in check only by The Word Of God For All Times...
 
I assume there's some facetiousness in this comment I'm not getting. What is it about orthodox Christians and their apparently OVERWHELMING desire to do bad things?

It sometimes feels that, without the local free methodist or pentecostal church next door, we'd all be in danger of hordes of rapists, murderers, sex addicts and adulterers, held in check only by The Word Of God For All Times...

I've heard that he won't eat alone with another woman and won't attend an event that has alcohol without his wife and heez been married for some 30 years.

Now that says to me he's in those 3 senses hez considerate of others and society and knows aboot his sinfull nature.

Nothing terribly horrible aboot that, @BetteTheRed . Check why you wrote what you wrote. What were you really reacting to? You don't have to answer.
 
Does ink on a page dog your thoughts ... thus the 4 added to the Caduceus as || in parallel organisms ... force eM winds as spontaneity?

If nothing works blow in his ear suit of nothing ... no way that'll work ... until you try it ...
 
DGdOtAnUQAAC-ak.jpg
 
Back
Top