BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
He is meeting all the Constitutional requirements of the job. Hard to say he mistreats it.
Would you work for Trump?
- Thread starter JPK
- Start date
He is meeting all the Constitutional requirements of the job. Hard to say he mistreats it.
Parsman
Muse
To be fair, compared to the way he mangles the English language and destroys Logical thought processes, Trump is only handling the constitutional side of his position very badly indeed.
NoahFence
Banned
Is it a constitutional requirement to fill his staff? Seems like it should be.
If they're not constitutional requirements, at minimum can we at least agree that it should be?
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,767
Even the Pentagon is being operated with a skeleton crew in the upper echelons of management. Normally I wouldn't care, but Jim Mattis can't carry all the load himself. As far as I know there is no constitutional requirement to fill the staff. There probably has been some bloat at upper levels of the federal bureaucracy but Trump is taking things to the opposite extreme. Mattis is a big supporter of diplomacy but Trump apparently doesn't believe in diplomats, or else no one approached wants to work for him except (maybe) at the Cabinet level.
It's well documented that he whines about slow approval for his appointments when in fact he hasn't made many.
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,767
Maybe I've been spoiled by presidents who actually provide leadership (even bad leadership!). I know you're not big on collective anything but leadership IMO comes pretty close to being a biological human need. It's built in to much mammal behavior and humans are mammals, after all.
NoahFence
Banned
Would you agree at least that it's his responsibility to protect the citizens of his country?
(Including you? )
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
The Republicans have always advocated smaller government. Trump's just doing his part.
As long as he can find spots for lobbyists, agents for foreign governments, family, and sycophants, why should he worry about the rest?
After all, you can see from the problems he's been having that good sycophants are hard to find.
He can't even get lawyers.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Legal firms tend to take on cases that they believe they have a good chance of winning, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the party involved.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they don't think they've got any real chance in defending Trump
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I am not a government employee, so no.
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 44,024
I took the OP's title as more of a philosophical question. As in "Would you ever work for Trump and renounce your principles?" I think that, regardless of what that man represents, if he happened to own some kind of organization that was actually doing something good for society (and I know that is one big "if"), I would consider working for such organization. In other words, to me the name Trump and the fact that such organization would be associated to him, wouldn't be an issue. Only what such organization accomplishes. If it does something good for society, then I'm in.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
If I had the good fortune to work for Trump, then there is only one job that I would take.
And that one job is that I would be the person who would double-check his income tax submissions for the last several years.
Of course, after I published this data, then I expect that I would not be working for Trump much longer than a few minutes.
And that one job is that I would be the person who would double-check his income tax submissions for the last several years.
Of course, after I published this data, then I expect that I would not be working for Trump much longer than a few minutes.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Preibus might not have that option much longer...Trump has given him until July 4th to "Clean Up" the White House...or else.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
So, I guess that means he'll be firing his entire cabinet, then?
But, I will withdraw my candidacy at this point, because I really don't think I could compete with the Yes Men on display.
When trump secured the nomination, a friend of mine posted on face book that he couldn't be bought, he got dozens of responses to the effect of "but he can be flattered into just about anything" How would anyone get the impression that he doesn't like yes men?
NoahFence
Banned
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, apparently he only likes them when they pee.
This alone would make it impossible for me to work for Trump. But apparently this does not stop at least some from doing so. Most recently demonstrated during last cabinet meeting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/trump-boasts-of-record-setting-pace-of-activity.html
How can anyone not find this both intensely disturbing and sickening?. Is the USA now some comic opera pitiful little dictatorship? Has surrounding oneself with craven, gutless lackies ever helped in running a government well?
Any powerful person who is so driven by flattery can be easily manipulated. But even that opportunity does not balance out the negatives involved in working for him as I see it.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Legal firms tend to take on clients that they feel can give them a significant financial reward. I'm sure that doing it with a minimum of hassles is a factor.
But merely losing a case isn't that much of a hassle. Most criminal cases are lost by the defense anyway,
By way of example;
if only because the prosecution has the twin advantages of the huge resources of the state, and the ability to choose cases they are likely to win.Most cases don't go to trial anyway. They get pled out, another area where having a lawyer is an advantage even if the defendant loses. He gets a better deal. The lawyer still gets paid.
If anything it opens the door to more billing opportunities preparing appeals and challenges.
Trump's reputation for evading his debts aside, I suspect that the frustration and negative publicity they would anticipate from Trump as a client are just not worth the trouble.
I suppose it could depend on how badly they need new clients, but considering what is public knowledge about Trump's relationships with lawyers I suspect they'd need them awful bad.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they don't think they've got any real chance in defending Trump
And I doubt that that has any significant influence on their decision not to take him on as a client.
He'd just be too much of a problem. As has been pointed out, they know 1) He doesn't listen, and B) He doesn't pay.
Why bother. There are plenty of other clients.
Trump's Administration alone is likely to generate quite a few.
If they took him on then they'd have to turn all the rest of them away. Conflict of interest.
Last edited: