Trump fires Chief Usher....

[theprestige]

Sorry, who's being presumptuous here?

Seriously, who isn't being presumptuous here? If you have evidence that Trump personally dismissed her, let's have it. If you've got nothing, and just want to invent alternative facts, then stop complaining.

 

[phiwum]

No worse than anything else that's been presumed in this thread so far. My speculation is well in line with the tone set by the first few posts in this thread. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Sure, if you want to forfeit the moral high ground, you're free to do so.

I thought you had a point, but you seem mighty willing to abandon it.

 

[phiwum]

Seriously, who isn't being presumptuous here? If you have evidence that Trump personally dismissed her, let's have it. If you've got nothing, and just want to invent alternative facts, then stop complaining.

I don't think you'll find any posts from me saying she was fired.

Bob001 pointed out that resignations usually are announced beforehand. That gives some evidence that she was fired, but as you rightly point out, does not exclude the possibility.

I just don't get why you've decided to emulate the very behavior you were complaining about.

ETA: The fact that the recently unemployed usher told reporters that they should ask the White House for an explanation adds some additional evidence that she was fired rather than quit, but again, not enough for certainty.

 

[theprestige]

Sure, if you want to forfeit the moral high ground, you're free to do so.

What does the moral high ground actually profit me, other than your grudging consideration? Will it garner a retraction of any baseless and hateful speculation presented as fact? Will it grant a more charitable consideration of some future argument I might make, from the usual suspects who haunt this subforum? Will it silence, even for an hour, the endless stream of hateful garbage spewing from some members here?

I doubt it.

So you tell me, phiwum: What's in it for me, to hold the "moral high ground" in this sewer? How much is your approbation actually worth, here, among these others?

I thought you had a point, but you seem mighty willing to abandon it.

My point is there for you to champion or not as you see fit, whether I cling to it or not. Does your opinion really depend so much on mine? Is that why you think I should care so much about yours?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

So you tell me, phiwum: What's in it for me, to hold the "moral high ground" in this sewer? How much is your approbation actually worth, here, among these others?

And that's why I usually stay away from the US politics forum.
People who appear quite reasonable elsewhere are more than willing to sling mud because 'the other 'side' is doing it too'.

 

[theprestige]

And that's why I usually stay away from the US politics forum.
People who appear quite reasonable elsewhere are more than willing to sling mud because 'the other 'side' is doing it too'.

Except, of course, you don't usually stay away.

 

[phiwum]

What does the moral high ground actually profit me, other than your grudging consideration? Will it garner a retraction of any baseless and hateful speculation presented as fact? Will it grant a more charitable consideration of some future argument I might make, from the usual suspects who haunt this subforum? Will it silence, even for an hour, the endless stream of hateful garbage spewing from some members here?

I doubt it.

So you tell me, phiwum: What's in it for me, to hold the "moral high ground" in this sewer? How much is your approbation actually worth, here, among these others?


My point is there for you to champion or not as you see fit, whether I cling to it or not. Does your opinion really depend so much on mine? Is that why you think I should care so much about yours?

No, no, if you think that decency matters less than points in an internet discussion, then go for points. It's all a matter of values, and you've made yours fairly clear.

Back on topic: Seems to me that so far, this is a non-issue. Let's suppose that the usher was fired. We don't know the situation, reason or who made the call. Was it badly done? Sure could have been, but we know so little that there's no reason yet to be in a tizzy.

The Trump administration is incompetent and led by a petulant moron. There are many things to complain about these days. I think I can let this one go, barring some explicit evidence of serious wrongdoing (and not just general dickishness).

 

[Beerina]

It's actually moderately difficult to fire someone in Australia, I am assuming those privledges don't exist in the land of the free?

There are federal laws against firing people for racial, sexual, or disability reasons, but not in general, as in you have to have a good reason. Some states add additional reasons, like sexual orientation and the like. There are ongoing court cases claiming sexual orientation firing is really a sexual (boy/girl) firing, and thus covered under federal law, but that's not settled yet.

More and more states are becoming "right to work" states, which means you can get hired at a union shop without joining the union, or at least paying dues to it. This is all state-level law.

But in most states, there is "at will" emloyment, which means they can get rid of you for any or no reason at all (subject to above.)


I used to work for a large multi-national that, in a mid 2000s downturn, carved off lots of people, including engineers, from all facilities worldwide. Except for the German division, which had 300 engineers. That division actually bragged about firing essentially no one, which was also consistent with German law which made it difficult.

Corporate went to them and the German government and said, "We can lay off 100 people, or we can lay off 300, if you get our drift." Projects regularly involved people on multiple continents, and shifting of who did the work was of little importance. The government backed down.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Except, of course, you don't usually stay away.

On what empirical data do you base this accusation?

 

[Mojo]

The Trump administration has abruptly fired the first woman and second African-American to serve as Chief Usher...

Per'aps she told 'im to 'ush.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

She may have clashed with Ivanka over questions of decorating or other household management issues. That might explain the relative discretion with which her departure was handled--hardly characteristic of Trump himself.

Who said it was?

 

[Darat]

There are federal laws against firing people for racial, sexual, or disability reasons, but not in general, as in you have to have a good reason. Some states add additional reasons, like sexual orientation and the like. There are ongoing court cases claiming sexual orientation firing is really a sexual (boy/girl) firing, and thus covered under federal law, but that's not settled yet.

More and more states are becoming "right to work" states, which means you can get hired at a union shop without joining the union, or at least paying dues to it. This is all state-level law.

But in most states, there is "at will" emloyment, which means they can get rid of you for any or no reason at all (subject to above.)


I used to work for a large multi-national that, in a mid 2000s downturn, carved off lots of people, including engineers, from all facilities worldwide. Except for the German division, which had 300 engineers. That division actually bragged about firing essentially no one, which was also consistent with German law which made it difficult.

Corporate went to them and the German government and said, "We can lay off 100 people, or we can lay off 300, if you get our drift." Projects regularly involved people on multiple continents, and shifting of who did the work was of little importance. The government backed down.

Evidence that the German government was involved in such a minor matter never mind that they backed down.

 

[applecorped]

Wow, slow news day?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Wow, slow news day?

Yeah, remember when Teh Ebil Clintons replacing staff in the White House travel office was sufficient to get three years' coverage and launch four conspiracy theories? Now, that was NEWS, right?

 

[marplots]

Yeah, remember when Teh Ebil Clintons replacing staff in the White House travel office was sufficient to get three years' coverage and launch four conspiracy theories? Now, that was NEWS, right?

I remember that.

Waiting to see if this headline appears: Trump Hires Chief Usher

 

[phiwum]

Yeah, remember when Teh Ebil Clintons replacing staff in the White House travel office was sufficient to get three years' coverage and launch four conspiracy theories? Now, that was NEWS, right?

I think that was more news than this story so far. The Clintons seemed to be doing a favor for a friend, if I remember correctly, by putting her travel agency in the office. That was petty and ethically dubious. Not terribly high on the list of presidential scandals, but not a wholly innocent act either.

This firing might be ethically dubious too, but we don't know anything about it yet.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Wow, slow news day?

Four words! Make a complete sentence, you get cake.

 

[newyorkguy]

I guess this is a derail, but like most things Clinton, there's some smoke but not much fire. The White House travel office had been audited and it was discovered about $15,000 was missing and unaccounted for. The staff was let go and the new staff included a cousin of Bill Clinton's. The GOP in Congress went after Hillary Clinton after a WH staffer was discovered to have told someone, roughly, "Hillary made us fire them."

Hillary was hauled into a Congressional hearing and denied under oath that she was the one responsible for firing the staff. (A Democratic congressman called the hearing "an embarrassment.") Next a federal prosecutor started looking at the case. He thought maybe he could nail her for perjury. He finally announced the charges were being dropped in 2000, in the middle of Clinton's campaign for the Senate in New York. The prosecutor told a news conference that he was dropping the charges because he had no evidence, or at least none of the kind that would hold up in court, but that he didn't believe her, he was convinced she was lying. All this in the middle of her campaign to be elected New York senator.

Sound familiar?

 

[TofuFighter]

Makes more sense that Trump would simply be replacing staff with people who he feels are personally loyal to him. That's generally how he operates. The way he doesn't operate, is doing things the way they're usually done, and does not give a single **** if you like that or not.

A diversity hire? I thought you were better than that.

 

[Bob001]

Makes more sense that Trump would simply be replacing staff with people who he feels are personally loyal to him. That's generally how he operates. The way he doesn't operate, is doing things the way they're usually done, and does not give a single **** if you like that or not.

A diversity hire? I thought you were better than that.

Who's that aimed at? I didn't say she was a diversity hire. But the job is a career position, not a political appointment. There have been nine Chief Ushers in the last 130 years. Some have served more than 20 years. Getting rid of her is the administration's privilege. What's questionable is the manner that she was abruptly fired, as if she did something terrible, not the usual "Thank you for your service," etc.

Interestingly, ABC News ran some footage of Trump praising her for her great job helping with the transition. All the more reason to ease her out with some dignity.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/chief-usher-white-house-fired-47239735