Trump Removes Anthony Scaramucci From Communications Director Role (nytimes.com) 463
Maggie Haberman, Michael D. Shear, and Glenn Thrush reporting for The New York Times: President Trump has decided to remove Anthony Scaramucci from his position as communications director (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternative source), three people close to the decision said Monday, relieving him just days after Mr. Scaramucci unloaded a crude verbal tirade against other senior members of the president's senior staff. Mr. Scaramucci's abrupt removal came just 10 days after the wealthy New York financier was brought on to the West Wing staff, a move that convulsed an already chaotic White House and led to the departures of Sean Spicer, the former press secretary, and Reince Priebus, the president's first chief of staff. From a report: Anthony Scaramucci will be leaving his role as White House Communications Director," the statement read. "Mr. Scaramucci felt it was best to give Chief of Staff John Kelly a clean slate and the ability to build his own team. We wish him all the best." Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is scheduled to brief the press corps, on-camera, at 12:45 pm PST. Scaramucci was given the job on Friday, June 21, and by Thursday, July 27, became something of a national laughingstock when The New Yorker reported his profanity-laced conversation with the magazine's Washington correspondent the night before. He was hired by the president to take charge of a communications operation in disarray, and his hiring coincided with the departure of White House press secretary Sean Spicer. Scaramucci, in his conversation with The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, was extremely critical of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and predicted, correctly, that then-chief of staff Reince Priebus would be removed from his position. Following the publication of Lizza's article, it became an open question in Washington whether Scaramucci would keep his job.
I don't like Trump, but (Score:2, Insightful)
He made a good decision here.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Immediately after making the bad one to put him in the role in the first place.
Again and again I can't help but be reminded of this video [youtube.com]. "If we screw up your vetting process, the next one is FREE!!!!!!"
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Funny)
Thunderbolts and lightning, very VERY frightening ME!!
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Interesting)
As well it should remind you, as Scaramucci is the Italian form of Scaramouch as mentioned in Bohemian Rhapsody, and that's the only reference in popular American culture.
And conveniently, it fits Scaramucci perfectly! From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
So how does that apply to Scaramucci?
Could you get a more perfect name?
dom
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, not quite the only. [youtube.com]
Re: I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Funny)
Don't know if he can do the Fandango, but he sure can do the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, the fact that the Trump admin lets him go knowing that it's going to make them look bad is actually encouraging to me. When you make a mistake and instantly correct it, that's YUGE. Most government officials at that level tend to double down.
You could probably find a silver lining when buried under 50 feet of shit. Just because a bad mistake blows up in your face immediately does not mean fixing it after the fact is laudable. We have seen from both the Flynn and Scaramucci situations that the Trump administration didn't do anything until things had gotten quite bad already.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
The Trump "Administration" has turned your government into a reality TV show, but instead of going to the green room to bad-mouth the other contestants in private they just go on CNN or Fox or Twitter.
The only real upside is that the whole this is so ineffective it can't do as much damage as people feared. The wall can't get funded, Obamacare is still there... The closest they have come to actually doing something is the half-assed travel ban, despite Trump's best efforts to screw his future self.
SAD.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
A reality TV show is one step up from the previous Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Seriously, what did Obama do that was so terrible? I disagreed with him on foreign policy (he basically continued what Bush started), the use of drones and his war on whistle blowers. I never voted for him. But really he wasn't too bad considering what one can reasonably expect from a President. People act like the country is so much worse off after his term, but I just don't see it.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Funny)
Well, at least this particular fiasco is over. Now Scaramucci can go home to spend more time with his fam... ... oh. :(
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump is fighting with the RNC establishment. But nobody is talking about it, not even the Ds.
I've said it before, the DNC and RNC have 'mutually assured destruction' dirt on each other. Trump can trigger that data dump without even knowing what he's doing.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
If the RNC and Trump are busing screwing each other over, why should the Democrats do anything but stand back and let them have it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"All Trump has to do is actually prosecute Hillary"
Prosecute her for what? Losing the election?
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got a better take:
Trump is fighting the establishment because he and the people that support him are incompetent pieces of shit and they have to resort to the techniques of tinpot dictators to stay in office.
The establishment, as you like to use as a slur, is a whole lot of people that do the very hard job of running the most powerful country on earth. You know. Experts. The people you trust when sitting on your couch and bullshitting about topics you don't understand doesn't cut the mustard.
Running under the assumption that booting out "the establishment" and replacing it with people like Trump (And trump's supporters) will do anything but bring chaos and ruin and death is exactly why people like yourself should never vote.
Re: I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
That you don't recognize Trump as an even bigger shyster is telling
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is the kind of people that set themselves up to be politicians starting in fucking high school. Until Trump, nobody that had lived a life was perceived as electable.
Yeah, you want someone who's lived the hard-knock life of being the son of a multi-millionaire and gone on to racked up six bankruptcies. That's six times he's walked away from a failed business owing other people money.
Just the kind of guy who has the experience, qualifications, probity and wisdom to lead a country.
Re: I don't like Trump, but (Score:3)
These "experts" have utterly failed to take care of this country, indicated by the levels of corruption, lack of general welfare for the public, poor infrastructure, literally poisoning the public (Flint, MI) and doing fuck-all to remedy it, I could go on.
That's like accusing CERN physicists of being a disappointment on the basis of not having invented a warp drive yet. You expect politics to be absolutely flawless? Not to mention that, e.g., levels of corruption (aside from your idiotic lobbying and campaigning practices) in the US are pretty decent.
Re: (Score:3)
In Canada we have fine filtered milk alongside pasteurized milk. It's a little bit more expensive ($4.99* version $4.29 for 4 litres). On the outer bag it says it's guaranteed to stay fresh for 15 days longer than traditionally pasteurized milk. I notice a difference in taste but I can't say it's not just in my head.
But I can say it does say fresh longer. I mainly use it for tea and the extra shelf life allows me to buy 4 litres instead of 2 litres of the pasteurized milk (which is more than $3.50). I could
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have to keep firing people that you've hired it generally points to you not being a very good judge of character.
never cross the memes! (Score:2)
You're FIRED!
And you're fired!
And you're fired!
You're ALL GETTING FIRED!
LOL, in a whistling past the graveyard way...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may not like Trump (I don't) but laughing at his misfortune, is also laughing at your own, even if you are not a US citizen.
If the US goes down in chaos, so will the rest of the world. Laughing now at his misfortune, is only leading to your own. Sure you want your side to win, and the people who voted for the other side to loose, and loose so bad that they knew that they are wrong... But that doesn't happen, at least not without complete crippling defeat.
Re:never cross the memes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes laughing is the only thing you can do when confronted with the absurdity that's impacting your life. The laughing is also a big fat "we told you so". Sadly, this creates a defense mechanism in Trump voters who now believe they need to defend / rationalize their choice.
The man still has a 38% approval rating. 4 out of 10 Americans think he's doing a good job. If that isn't hilarious in its absurdity, then I don't know what is.
Re:never cross the memes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? Trump failing is going to be HUGE in term of benefits, same as he's already destroyed the Tea Party by accident. He's got both sides of both houses ignoring him and talking about working together. He is demanding they try again to pass a health reform bill, and the senate just said no, they're moving on.
Re:never cross the memes! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The fact that somebody like Trump could even get elected is a death-sentence. The problem isn't the guy in the captain's chair. The problem is all the guys who wanted him in the captain's chair"
This is point I've been making since that orange-tinted fucknut with the Pomeranian on his head descended down the golden escalator. Trump is entitled to be a raging lunatic asshole; that's his right in a free country.
The problem is that tens of millions of people chose him over 2 dozen Republicans of varying but largely superior qualifications to be their nominee and over 60 million wanted him as chief exec of the world's most powerful country.
Re:never cross the memes! (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that tens of millions of people chose him over 2 dozen Republicans of varying but largely superior qualifications to be their nominee
The Republican party nominated Donald Trump because the nomination process is mathematically stupid. He won with a minority of the voters supporting him [wikipedia.org]. The party didn't choose him, the poor process did. It really only works if there are only 2 candidates. With so many, it was botched.
Had he not eeked out enough votes in the end to get the required, the decision would have gone to the party leadership. They would have picked someone else. If the other Republican candidates weren't so arrogant, they could have dropped out earlier and rallied around one other candidate. The parties need to fix their nomination process. But even after this debacle they still won't. The voting public just doesn't understand the process. I wonder if you gave them a vote, but the vote was meaningless, if they would still support the process.
Re: (Score:3)
"People in the USA never realized what actually propelled them to #1, so they have no clue how to continue to be an example to the rest of the world."
I'm not sure about that. Total warfare with unconditional surrender as the goal was one of the methods. With nuclear weapons that is now a MAD option.
So we have our proxy wars and our security theater. Many look around and say "the world has never been in a worse state". Others look around and say things like "we're not killing each other by the hundreds of mi
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That may have been true for previous administrations, when the White House was more of a workplace and less of a reality show.
Reality has nothing to do with it, dearie.
Re: (Score:3)
The phrase "reality show" is understood to mean televised nonscripted surreality. Not actual reality.
"Reality show" means scripted to look unscripted with actors you can pay much less for and replace a lot more easily. Nothing about Reality TV is real.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A workplace with a revolving door for their workers says a lot about their management and how the company is ran. There are companies big (to big to fail) and small that run this way. It shows utter incompetence from the top down. Fortunately in our case, it doesn't always sink a company or in this case a government. We will recover and America will be great once again. We just have to wait out the orange pussy grabber to finish not doing his job and move forward.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Well an old despair.com poster once stated "Morale: often the best solution is to fire all the unhappy people". Sadly and with a sense of irony it correct.
It is not a character flow if you need to do a turn around. It's appropriate. All the time shows not a character flow but rather under paying and inappropriately managed.
A famous MBA book called Good To Great companies that have did an amazing turn around and compare them it a competitor which was the former market leader.
Basically it boiled down to a CEO saying THIS IS BULLSHIT! We need a change with his senior executives. They implement a turn around and give a "Bus is moving in a new direction. Either get on the bus or get off?". The gray hairs who while and others who do pissing contests are fired. Morale is improved and direction changes. Then company takes bigger competitor down and wins!
Trump is inappropriate and unprofessional. This caused his staff to do the same and in fight. Gen Kelly is a no nonsense guy who wants discipline and teamwork. Yes firings should continue and staff should report to him. Not Trump since he won't change. When change needs happening it's best to use those who are not so disgruntled they can't get unboard.
Oh and those fired from such positions almost always are happier. It serves no one good to keep bitter angry people who cause problems and not solutions
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:4, Insightful)
What kind of moron wrecks a good paying scam to steal $100 from a flower fund? That's not bad character, that's just stupid.
I guess Trump dislikes looking in the mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
Scaramucci strikes me as awfully similar in many ways to Trump himself - a foul mouthed, self centered narcissist. I guess Trump does not like to have others like himself around. What surprises me is that he did not realize what Scaramucci was like before appointing him. I guess, as usual, Trump failed to listen to those around him.
Re:I guess Trump dislikes looking in the mirror (Score:5, Interesting)
Scaramucci was using an social engineering tactic called mimicking that is useful in ingratiating yourself to your target. Ever seen side by side video of both he and Trump speaking? He puts froth the same sort of mannerism and gestures that Trump does.
It was Trump's new chief of staff (Kelly) that demanded Scaramucci be gone, no one who was career military is going to put up with the likes of Scaramucci's BS.
Re: (Score:3)
"He puts froth the same sort of mannerism and gestures that Trump does."
QFTFS
Quoted for True Freudian Slip.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When someone gives me their hand like that, I just assume they want it kissed, like an upper class French lady from 100 years ago. It's sometimes a little awkward when I do.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Interesting)
It was Kelly.
It wasn't trump as he is too dumb to do that.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of me wonders if this was planned all along (and by all along I mean the last few days) as a way to get rid of Preibus. Trump obviously isn't happy with the GOP and getting rid of Priebus was a good way to put a shot over the GOP's bow. So, bring in Mooch, have him get into a pissing match with Priebus, use that as an excuse to get rid of Priebus, and bring in Kelly who might be more loyal to Trump. Then, when Mooch has done his job, cut him loose. Trump gets to get rid of poor Spicey, gets to rebuke the GOP over their failed repeal of Obamacare, and gets a new Chief of Staff and (eventually) a new Communications Director.
Of course, the other part of me thinks Trump is so unhinged and disjointed he can't even plan far enough ahead to decide whether he wants original or extra crispy KFC waiting for him in the limo that takes him from Air Force One to Mar a Lago on his biweekly "definitely not golfing" weekend golf trips.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder myself. Trump is able to give the Chattering Classes plenty of fuel to keep them occupied, while slowly filling the positions that he needs with people loyal to Trump and not an ideology. It takes time to execute regime change as practiced in America.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of me wonders if this was planned all along (and by all along I mean the last few days) as a way to get rid of Preibus. Trump obviously isn't happy with the GOP and getting rid of Priebus was a good way to put a shot over the GOP's bow. So, bring in Mooch, have him get into a pissing match with Priebus, use that as an excuse to get rid of Priebus, and bring in Kelly who might be more loyal to Trump. Then, when Mooch has done his job, cut him loose. Trump gets to get rid of poor Spicey, gets to rebuke the GOP over their failed repeal of Obamacare, and gets a new Chief of Staff and (eventually) a new Communications Director.
Of course, the other part of me thinks Trump is so unhinged and disjointed he can't even plan far enough ahead to decide whether he wants original or extra crispy KFC waiting for him in the limo that takes him from Air Force One to Mar a Lago on his biweekly "definitely not golfing" weekend golf trips.
10 days is more long term planning than I'd generally give Trump credit for.
Besides, replacing Priebus with Kelly who then turfed Spicer would have been pretty good optics. In that scenario you have the "disciplined military man coming in and taking charge" narrative.
Instead Trump looks like a fool for hiring Scaramucci and looks weak for having is Chief of Staff come in and reverse his hiring position. Plus, you have yet another instance of someone joining the administration and losing their reputation in the process. You're not going to have much luck recruiting good people.
Re:I don't like Trump, but (Score:5, Funny)
Rearranging Deck Chairs? (Score:3)
Agreed, but wow. As others have pointed out, Mr. Trump does not appear to be a good judge of character. Or perhaps his team of advisers are not. Either way, this administration seems unable to keep its (White) house in order. Is this how they conduct all of their affairs? This should be simple as this is a process where they control all/most of the factors. What happens when this administration is dealing with another country, or sensitive situation, where they do not control many/most of the factors?
At eve
Re: Rearranging Deck Chairs? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And how long do you imagine Trump is going to tolerate Kelly? Yes, a lot of people are pinning their hopes on Kelly bringing some order to the White House, but by and large the disorder is coming from Kelly's new boss, which means the person most in need of being controlled is the President himself, and he does not appear to be the kind of man who will tolerate being handled.
I wish General Kelly the best of luck. I don't imagine he'll be around long himself.
Re: Rearranging Deck Chairs? (Score:3)
I do not like Trump, but things he is good at:
He is good at picking one word to say about oppeonts that fits well enough for them to get in trouble over it.
He is good at changing the subject - that said, it has gotten harder for him with some of these russia investigation stuff,
Sounding honest - i.e many people seem to believe that he says.
He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND
Re: (Score:3)
I do not like Trump, but things he is good at: He is good at picking one word to say about oppeonts that fits well enough for them to get in trouble over it.
Shit-talking. Got it.
He is good at changing the subject - that said, it has gotten harder for him with some of these russia investigation stuff,
More caca from the cabeza, ok.
Sounding honest - i.e many people seem to believe that he says.
Ya, more people believe this president than any other, well, except for ... all of them in the last 70 years [time.com].
He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it.
So he's an average businessman? I could find a lot of numbers to disagree, but I'll give you that. Granted, it doesn't really qualify for "things he's good at."
He seemes to value family highly.
As opposed to all those o
Re: (Score:3)
HOW can that be insightful? The reference of "He" is not clear unless you refer back to the Subject: line. Okay, so it's #PresidentTweety, but I STRONGLY doubt this was even his decision. The Mooch is the Donald's soulmate. You don't fire your TRUE soulmate.
I think this decision came directly from General Kelly. Trump has curled into the fetal position and has retrogressed to his high school days in the fake military private school. In Trump's delusional memory he was a YUGE success as a fake platoon comman
Re: (Score:2)
Was this a position that had to be confirmed? Idiots appointing idiots is bad enough, but the appointed idiots getting confirmed is all that much worse
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And you can't even blame the voters because a minority put him in charge in the first place!
Records (Score:3)
Man this crew is setting some records! I wonder how many more they'll set before the summers out. All this entertainment and still haven't passed anything of mention.
Re: (Score:2)
Man this crew is setting some records! I wonder how many more they'll set before the summers out. All this entertainment and still haven't passed anything of mention.
Well, Trump did champion the concept of Drain the Swamp a time or two.
Perhaps he overlooked the fact the swamp was on his own property...
Re: (Score:3)
Man this crew is setting some records! I wonder how many more they'll set before the summers out. All this entertainment and still haven't passed anything of mention.
Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) has a link to a Reddit article that listed something like more than 50 "accomplishments" that Trump has done with the article being created to specifically rebut the idea that he's done nothing. About half of them were executive orders Trump signed and I honestly right now have no way to know if those are accomplishing anything or not. He's been pretty busy deporting illegal immigrants, and I have one friend who supports Trump who really likes this a lot. So I'm just pointing
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Records (Score:5, Insightful)
Adams is exhibiting the same irony that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did. Doyle's creation, Sherlock Holmes, was about as materialist as one could be. He believed everything had a rational explanation, appeared to reject the idea of the supernatural (hence his deduction that the Curse of the Baskervilles was a silly piece of folklore being used to cover a crime), and yet Doyle bought into all sorts of spiritist claptrap, going so far as to defend those two fraudster girls and their "faerie pictures".
In other words, both Adams and doyle suffer that most peculiar of human conditions; cognitive dissonance. It's bizarre that Adams can't see that Trump is as good an example of the boss character in his comics as one could imagine,
As to Trump's accomplishments, yes he's signed some executive orders, but really, the big ticket items like the wall (which now looks from proposed expropriations will be little more than about 800 miles of more fence) and health care are bust. Just wait for tax reform. As it is, his political capital is so low, his own party clearly thinks he's either an idiot or deranged (or both), and at six months in, he's not accomplished anything of any great importance. Heck, there are a huge number of unfilled appointments that he hasn't got to, so he hasn't even been able to get anywhere near to completing one of the more basic aspects of his job.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember having a brief email exchange with Jerry Pournelle about ten years ago over some comment he'd made on his website about how evolution was pretty shaky (in particular that life could have begun on Earth), and invoking some sort of panspermia. I was taken aback, and just emailed him to suggest that research into abiogenesis was ongoing, and it was a bit premature to declare it impossible for life to evolve on earth. He shot back that no less than Fred Hoyle had advocated for panspermia. My reply wa
Re: (Score:3)
The Shockley/Chomsky syndrome. They are good at one thing, so they are experts on something completely unrelated.
Re: (Score:3)
This administration also recently secured a record for the lowest approval rating ever at the 6 month mark, so there's that.
Maybe in 3 1/2 years from now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will finally have a staff in place that can run the White House.
Yeah. The next President's.
This isn't an SNL skit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This isn't an SNL skit? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were to write a comedy skit about this presidency, no one would buy it because it would be too far fetched.
But it would be funny. This isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that Trump lets it all hang out for everyone to see.
At least if Reagan had done that, we wouldn't have to squint.
Reaching for the prize. (Score:5, Funny)
This tweet, six hours old, has not aged well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like MoonCoin!
What?
Stop laughing.
Could image over greed prevail (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the wealth that most of the cabinet and staff have in the current white house it confuses me why many of them would want to risk image issues or care to face the daily workload and headaches that these positions entail. Though many are earning a comfortable salary [politico.com], the money pulled in is likely secondary to the access to impact decisions as well as access to information. Given the chaos and drama however we must be left to think carefully about what kind of corruption might be brewing behind this relatively opaque administration. Like a poorly tuned monitoring system there is so much noise in US politics right now it is difficult to pick out where the real harm to the world might be.
Re:Could image over greed prevail (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO:
1) They vastly underestimate the work required. These are people who believe government doesn't do anything, so the people running the government must not do anything. So they believe the job is easy.
2) They have egos larger than galaxies, more fragile than egg shells, and relish the opportunity to show just how great they are.
Unfortunately these positions mean they are not always surrounded by obsequious underlings eager to sing their praises, so their incompetence becomes rapidly apparent. Thus damaging their massive but fragile egos.
Which causes them to lash out, demonstrating more incompetence, causing more damage, and so on.
Is the constant shake-up good for things? (Score:5, Informative)
Most business organizations I've witnessed tend to thrive when there's a level of stability. For example, people know they should talk to Person X in charge of Process Y directly to get the real deal on things. It's good to get people out who are pretty toxic, but doesn't government work the same way? Don't companies and wealthy people use the back-channel methods to actually get work done?
We'll see what happens...I'm hoping that there's just a ton of drama, things basically get parked for 4 years, and other countries don't see it as an opportunity to get ahead while everyone's distracted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, Ryan and McConnell were given an impossible task, at least on the timelines Trump wanted. Now I'll concede that the GOP deserved this slapdown because it's now clear that for seven years that they were trying to bring Obamacare down, they had no intention of ever actually doing so, so whatever damage they take from their base is well-earned. At the end of the day, however, they set about to climb a very high mountain in a very short period of time, knowing full well that it had very low chances
There's simply no job security with Trump as POTUS (Score:2)
This is killing me. I was really looking forward for more of Mario Cantone as Scaramucci on The President Show.
Not revoved, Forced out (Score:2)
With the potty mouth remarks Anthony Scaramucci made late Thrusday he coudldn't of lasted. On CNN that same morning Anthony Scaramucci watched what he said while making it apparent he has a long time hatred of two members of Trumps staff (and what I watched).
When his nemesis Reince Priebus was fired Friday and Trump said nothing of Anthony Scaramucci, I figured it over for Trump. Put in another postion (couldn't define removed) I figure he's on a clock.
Go figure. I don't do political post, so the one I do -
Scaramoosh! (Score:2)
In the future... (Score:5, Funny)
In the future, everybody will be a member of Trump's cabinet for 15 minutes.
This just in.. (Score:2)
Trump impeaches Trump, then has him removed from the Presidency.
But seriously, this admin has higher turnover than a freakin' MacDonalds.
Though in the particular case of Scaramucci, I fully support this move.
Hey, fugettaboutit.
The Fandango (Score:3)
Personally I think Scaramucci's firing came down to his refusal to do the Fandango.
To Quote Porky Pig: (Score:2)
"Th-Th-The, Th-Th-The, Th-Th... That's all, folks!""
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, anything else gets delayed by days, to the point we're getting year-old stories. But Trump fired someone "News for nerds, stuff that matters"?
True (Score:3)
Every other story here is days or weeks old. Trump staples some papers and immediately gets posted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this administration? Not really. Changes seem to be afoot every day and most of these are political appointments. People who do the actual work don't get their announcement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I had just made my rounds of all the lying news sites (which are all of them, depending on who you speak to). I went to /. for some idle chit-chat with AC's and the usual gang of idiots.
To my surprise, a current event! More current than all the news sites that I had just read!
I just want it on record that I consider this disappointing, and another sign that /. has hit bottom. I do not come to this site to read current events! I do not come to this site to read about "News for Nerds", whatever that really me
Re:Slashdot is facing some discouraging trends. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The whole planet is sick of your so-called "left vs right" debates, you're all right-wing as far as the rest of us are concerned.
2. This is Slashdot, left vs right debates should not belong here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll agree. From OP "The majority of people don't want to be subjected to more leftist nonsense about affirmative action, about transsexuals, about -isms and -phobias, and about so-called "social justice" in general. They don't want to be subjected to virtue signalling. They don't want to read comment after comment full of pathetic insults like "Drumpf" and "orange skin" and "small hands" and "bad hair"."
I'll include I didn't want all the similar crap from rightists the previous eight years. But, as has bee
Re: (Score:3)
So what is it that you want? People who feel they have been treated unfairly to keep their mouths shut? Gays back in the closet, lest your tender sensibilities be offended?
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, I'd like "my side" to quit acting like "the other side".
Re: (Score:3)
This is a pretty vague answer. What side is yours, how is it acting like the other side, and why is either side perceived by you to be behaving badly?
Activism is at the very core of American life. From the very beginning, the idea of concerned groups of citizens gathering together for a cause, whether that be Abolition, women's suffrage, or heck, taxation with representation (to go ALL the way back) have been a feature of American life. I'm sure there were people who groaned every time someone brought up sl
Re: (Score:3)
It would be nice to stop hearing 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' used as insults. It's not an insult to disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth are you talking about? Mockery of Democracy? That's what is going on in Venezuela over the weekend not in the Whitehouse right now.
This guy was obviously not a good fit for the Whitehouse "Communications Director" given his current situation. But truth be told, I don't imagine that this guy is necessarily in a good place in his personal life, with his wife divorcing him on the same day as his youngest child was born during his first week on a really high pressure, high stakes, publically vis
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd cut him a big break...Most of us wouldn't handle any one of these pressures very well...
You know, if you don't like petting scorpions, you shouldn't get a job petting scorpions.
What's really terrifying is that the WH has become a toxic place for any remotely competent people in the US. What's left after The Mooch?
Re: (Score:3)
LOL.. Toxic is it? So the Whitehouse is a "toxic place" now eh?
Absolutely. Besides possibly Tillerson there's not a single competent staff member in Trump's cabinet. It is staggering, and it is only getting worse.
And remember, even Tillerson is officially out because he "needed some time off". What was the last time you heard about a Secretary of State taking time off?!
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that President Trump appointed a Director of Communications who is mentally unstable.
That would explain the call to the New Yorker journalist. The Mooch is out of his mind. Frankly it sounded more like coked out of his mind, but let's just go with him being mentally unstable.
Re: (Score:3)
My point is that someone with no communications experience and who was apparently mentally unsound was appointed as Director of Communications, quickly went on a vulgarity-laden on the record tirade to a reporter, and it wasn't until General Kelly was appointed Chief of Staff that this man was thrown out.
Apart from the possibility of mental disturbance, why is it exactly that this man was appointed to a position for which he no experience at all to begin with? Trying to claim it's a win for the Trump Admini
Re: (Score:3)
Look on the bright side...the 'Fat Bottomed Girl' isn't in the white house.