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!

And you have?
I lived in the US through the administrations of all the Presidents from Eisenhower to Reagan. I also remember the presidencies since then. I defy you to show me any of them who had so much trouble keeping staff. Can you do it?



Didn't think so.

So first you say that you haven't reviewed every president, then you say that, "the high rate of people coming and going, and the total chaos resulting from it that has been exemplified by this presidency? Never." and now you're changing it to just be about the presidents from Eisenhower on. Oh boy, the waffling.
 
Can you find any other President that's had so much trouble retaining staff members?

Or is this another question you can't (or won't) answer?
 
Can you find any other President that's had so much trouble retaining staff members?

Or is this another question you can't (or won't) answer?

Since you first claimed that there has never been another president yada yada yada, providing the proof to back up your statement is up to you, not me. The review of history awaits you. Happy hunting Redbaron.
 
Once again, as the last time, you are either a) unable to answer the question, or b) you know the answer, and you don't like it.
This isn't an insult or slight, btw. It's merely a simple statement of reality.
 
Once again, as the last time, you are either a) unable to answer the question, or b) you know the answer, and you don't like it.
This isn't an insult or slight, btw. It's merely a simple statement of reality.

The research is up to you Redbaron. It seems that you can't substantiate your statement. Perhaps it's best not to make such a statement then. Have a great day.
 
I stand by the facts and reality of my statements.
That you don't like the answers to the questions isn't my responsibility. Any research is really on you, not me.
 
I stand by the facts and reality of my statements.
That you don't like the answers to the questions isn't my responsibility. Any research is really on you, not me.

No. It's up to you to substantiate your claim. You have failed to do so.
 
@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.
 
Last edited:
How far down do the common people see themselves before natural god's reaction occurs and the powers retreat?

Perhaps because of internal Cana Ba'aL-ism! Tis a subjective thing when the support people at the bottom are denied survival ... following that escapism ... thus numb-in-no-citii ... i.e. glowing stupidity amongst the chaos? Vanity ... all is vanity down here ... justifying martyr-dumb to kill awareness of what we do to selves ...

Few understand the subjective-objective nature of self ...
 
Well, jae, I'm a professional historian. I've read a good deal of American history. And I don't know of a single president who has been so much at war with his own party.

But if you can name one, that would certainly prove your case. We await in breathless awe.

There is not the slightest chance he will get a second term - not from the voters, and not from his own party.

As well, he has yet to show any consistent policy on anything - with the exception of wanting to destroy medicare.
 
revsdd said:
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.


Aye, well, that's the rub isn't it?
 
BetteTheRed said:
I think his policy on Islam (as in the radical jihadist) is pretty consistent.

The judiciary concurs based on the fact that they find it consistently lacking in anything approaching merit.
 
He doesn't have a policy on Islam. For example, he offers lush support to Saudi Arabia, the most extreme Islamic state in the world. And, like Bush and Obama, he gives military support to jihadists in Syria - though that is wobbling. He is now deliberately starving millions in Yemen for reasons that are not clear. He is on good terms with largely Islamic Pakistan. He is on good terms with the government of Afghanistan. The Islamic world is pretty big - and I don't see any consistent policy toward it.
 
Back
Top