Why was Trump so bad at appointing only the "Best People"?

While the dregs endure,

​

others lose their allure:

On Republican Christopher Wray, his Director of the FBI:

“He is an impeccably qualified individual, and I know that he will again serve his country as a fierce guardian of the law and model of integrity once the Senate confirms him to lead the FBI.”
​

On William Barr, his Attorney General:

"He's a very straight shooter. We have a great attorney general and he's working very hard."

"Bill Barr is a man of unbelievable credibility and courage and he's going to go down on the history books."
​

On John Kelly, his Chief of Staff:

"A Great American and a Great leader" and "a true star" of the Trump administration.
​

On his Chief of Staff General Mark Milley:

"I have absolute confidence that he will fulfill his duty with the same brilliance and fortitude he has shown throughout his long and very distinguished career."
​

On Rex Tillerson, his Secretary of State:

"A world class player and dealmaker!”
​

Bolton, Cohn, Sessions, Coats, Scaramucci, etc., etc., etc.

​

Some trophy wives and bimbos have had longer shelf lives.

​

 

He only knows that type of people. It's his best.

 

Trump came to office as an outsider to politics. No doubt wiser than many, but I think few not part of politics begin to grasp the extent of hypocrisy and void of character that exists there, and that the system itself promotes. I've been part of a small group working on how to restore integrity to politics for more than a decade, and we had the advantage of an insider of 40 years experience to tell us what we were up against.
It's a very dirty game, and one deeply entrenched, and one where loyalty to cause is over-ridden by money and the retention of power. The concept of draining the swamp as a needed goal is a good one, but I don't think the public understands how severe the need is- and neither the public or the politicians know how or if it can be done. But, our future depends on it

However Trumps exposure to it, while difficult, has honed his understanding. I've noted he says a lot less things without forethought and purpose. His timing is greatly improved; his focus on the base issues behind all this sharpened. If he chooses to run, the chances of winning are growing steadily- and if the democrats continue to make his case for him, continue to demonstrate incompetence and gross "unfitness" for office, I think he would handily win. I prefer Trumps objectives, his courage and values, but I would prefer a younger voice that would not bring the baggage that would accompany Trump. That may or may not come to pass. We will probably know a lot more when the mid-terms come in.

 

His innocence may have also occasioned faux pas in etiquette such as pleasuring himself for hours watching his goons whom he had deployed to the Capitol to fight like hell savaging outnumbered police, after falsely claiming that he had had an inexplicable "Landslide" stolen, and recounts, audits, investigations, and appeals had all failed to support the lie.

The ingénue shall observe the niceties next time, no doubt.

 

I think he didn't assume the correct level of risk from the political hacks that he chose, based on the advice of others. It looks like you might not be able to trust anyone in DC these days. But if you don't use those useless fecks, who runs stuff in your administration?

 

Donald Trump tends to appoint people who flatter him. It's that simple.

 

Trump has been in politics since the 80s. He has wanted to be president since 1988.

You have to try pretty hard to convince yourself that he was new to politics.

 

Everyone is so mean to the innocent fellow.

 

I doubt "mean" is the right word. They simply believed they could take advantage of him because, "outsider". A small sampling of the bureaucrat class text and social media posts would validate that. All those feckless little functionaries and their imagined power. Turns out, if bureaucrats don't like you, they can really effect how the nation operates. or not.

 

Two words, "innocence" and "ingénue" are not two words I would ever associate with Trump. Maybe Hope Hicks, but not Trump.

 

I was uncritically going with the thesis, "Trump came to office as an outsider to politics," as the excuse for his behavior.

 

Okay, but I still wouldn't use those two words, at any juncture, to describe Trump. He is neither. Moreover, the word ingénue is a word used normally to describe a young innocent/unsophisticated (as opposed to worldly) woman in a film or a play, so your use of the word is rather odd.

 

Yes. I have also used the terms "slut" and "skank" to describe Trump who rutted behind the backs of trophy wives, a violation of customary gender bias.

 

Trump's idea of "best people" is absolute loyality in the end. Pence was actually a good choice as VP in 2016. So was Sessions as AG and a few others. Some were not, like Ben Carson as HUD Secretary. He should have been nominated as Surgeon General, but I don't think the moderate Republicans would have gone along with that depending on his testimony. But in the end, the people that occupied the most important positions failed him as not being loyal, especially Pence. And that is why they have the ire of the MAGA supporters.

 

I wouldn't describe Trumps behavior as "slutty" or "skanky". Sure he got some tail he shouldn't have

 

Because his corruption knows no bounds and he is forced to only surround himself with corrupt and corruptible people.

 

What was wrong with Carson as HUD Secretary? Remember Carson is black. HUD is traditionally the place you stash a token black member of the administration.

 

Carson didn't know the first thing about what HUD. housing, what the agency does and does not do, the various public housing from native American to urban areas, and how to solve the problems each of these face. These problems are complex and not as simple as "Let's just privatize" the whole thing or let's get faith involved in handing out money.

Carson is brilliant when it comes to the medical field, but not as brilliant when it is everything else. Want him to do your complex tax return for you? Don't be surprised if he gets most things wrong, even using a tax return software.

 

So? Not all problems have a federal government solution.

 

Didn't say that, but simply saying that it needs to be privatized is not a solution. It is just shifting who does the work from employees to contractors, all still being paid by the federal government.

There are times when privitization is essential and there are times it is not. I don't think you want privatized CIA agents who can go rogue in our name, do you? Or law enforcement of any agency?

 

Consider that this is the best armed population in the world. Do you really think they would have planned to commit an insurrection unarmed?
The "insurrection" served the purpose of democrats very well, and evidence shows there were people in the capitol approach openly enticing the protestor s to enter the building. They of course were not arrested or bothered, despite video and proven identities- because they were there to turn the protest into a useful incident.

Close to half the nation agrees the election was corrupted. The sheer number of unexplained irregularities says it was corrupted. The history of conduct of the DNC and people running the democratic party says not only that they were capable of it, but would most likely try it. Those are the things you chose to dismiss... which is what they democrats tell you that you should do. The fact that hard evidence wasn't exposed hardly means the event wasn't corrupt. What that says is that the people responsible haven't been caught. Ever hear the old saying, "Let's not and say we did" ? That's where it stands. Probable cause to conclude corruption took place, no proof found. If it did not, that election would be totally out of the scope of the history of presidential elections, a very unlikely anomaly in multiple aspects of it.
I don't want a government that runs our nation like that. I want one that's honest, respects the laws and rules, is trustworthy and remembers they have a duty to the people.
Not what you want??

 

Take advantage of him? Anyone in his admin who didn't prove to be sufficiently loyal was immediately shown the door.

 

Dude everyone in DC will flatter you to your and then stab you in the back the minute you look the other way.

 

He's dealt with politicians on a limited basis, even entered a race or two- but to my knowledge has never held an office. That is not at all equivalent to holding office.
Politicians do not maintain a transparency. Transparency would mean a window into their game instead of putting up a choreographed facade, which is what we all see. .
Many newcomers elected to congress for example find themselves in culture shock when they see the level of partisanship, the motivation to start campaigning for re-election the day they are sworn in, and the pressure to raise vast amount of money to do so. Outsiders have no idea what goes on inside the game or how dirty it gets, and the insiders intend to keep it that way.

I've been part of a group working for years on reform ideas; one of our consulting members was a political science professor with years in Washington. He gave us an education on how things work- and it's no wonder they hide it.

 

Trump didn't want assistants or advisors, he wanted accomplices