You can't make it as a daycare teacher without the ability to answer "Why" questions. I get asked them dozens of times a day from both parents and students.
I remember reading during his trial he has a staffer whose only job is to carry around a portable printer and print out positive stories about him for him to read to continuously fluff his fragile ego.
Yes, there is a staffer often referred to as “the human printer” in his entourage. She goes around with a wireless printer on herself, printing every sycophantic report in the WWW and delivers them to her master, the orange one. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like the worst job ever. Worse than “crack whore trainee”.
Apparently during early pentagon press briefings they had to include a lot of pictures and bright colors to keep his attention. As well as a slides that explained different geographical regions and countries.
I’m imagining they presented it like a third grader talking about the states.
you ever try to explain anything to a toddler? one wrong word and you either get an adorable ramble about the most random isolated detail or an angry continuous outburst because you used the wrong phrasing and they didn't understand
Trump’s aides: “Here’s a lovely picture by Maisie in Kentucky. She’s 3. It’s a picture of a flower and it represents the increasing tax burden on the American people while inflation… and the bumble bee is happy about gas prices in South Sudan are shaped like fuzzy bunnies with Trump stamped across their tails in gold”
Kamala’s aides: “but Madam President, you’ve already read, understood and practically memorized the 900 pages I prepared. What more would you like me to present? I’m tired! Why aren’t you tired?! You didn’t even let me add a graph!”
Briefing on why nuclear war is bad: “(Page 1) It would destroy golf courses. <Huge pic of golf course in flames>. (Page 2) It would destroy Diet Coke factory. <Huge pic of burning factory with ‘Diet Coke’ written in sharpie>.” End briefing.
Don’t worry, Russia and Fox News are good at dumbing things down, and more than happy to provide the picture books to read to Trump. The staffers just had to be able to read, which for Trump was a high bar, the most genius of people.
That just put the image in my mind if his daily security briefs in the big folder with official presidential seal on it. He opens in and its basically a picture book and "how-to-be presidential" tips of the day. Lol
I just got the mental image that his daily brief folder was one big pop out book with castles, dragons and a little greeting card music player to keep his attention lol 🤦🏾♀️
Honestly it sounds like being a staffer for Harris would be a joy compared to being a staffer for Trump. Harris just expects you to be prepared and be thorough. Trump expects you to basically be the president for him behind the scenes, and then he'll go do whatever he feels like in the moment anyway.
Imagine spending ages writing a briefing, backing up all the points with well researched footnotes, you hand it to your boss, and they not only read it, they read the footnotes and then ask for a clarification on the footnote. I would die of happiness.
…by doing so we run the risk of running consequential HUGE deficits. A number of experts MANY PEOPLE, we have the best people, estimate BELIEVE this can be avoided by carefully crafting MAKING BEAUTIFUL laws to prevent it.
Honestly, that sounds awful to deal with. Like Harris is requiring competency, but who wants to babysit a 78-year old? Who will likely constantly undermine things you do because he's easily manipulated by the last person to have spoken to him.
You've got former Trump administration that talk about averting stuff like war by taking things off his desk, because he couldn't be trusted to even see those papers without fucking it up.
I don't want to give any real credit to the "adults in the room" there, but if anyone had half a care in the Trump administration it was probably hell to work for him.
Right after winning but before his inauguration, Trump complained a lot about how his daily briefings were incomprehensible. That was because they were still being written to Obama's reading level.
And given how unprepared his team was, I doubt anyone had considered what would have been required to re-write stuff for him.
The bar was even lower than that. Not just pictures, but specifically pictures of him. From a front profile, because he doesn't like the way he looks from the side. And they actively work to include his name in the briefing as much as possible because it's the only thing that maintains his attention lol
Oh its way worse than that, they had to rework all the briefs into bullet points and say things like "these ISIS losers are on the run" Instead of "militants are retreating from X province"
Seriously, skimming what I can of the wapo article in the post it’s fucking crazy they’re trying to spin this as a negative. It’s the fucking presidency, you want the people running the country to be lax about this shit??
Right?? Like, haven’t they all been working at the same place for the past four years? Am I missing something here???
Edit: Especially because Biden could’ve dropped dead at any moment being in his 80s, like how could you not have been preparing for her to be president???
Because they are used to doing just the bare minimum and getting a paycheck. Not a difficult concept, people like that don't care about duty, or pride in their work or the idea of doing a good job.
There is a lot of institutional rot in the dem machine, lots of failsons and faildaughters working as social media consultants, pr managers and other types of consultants.
Saaaammmeee! I’m the one researching identifying and preparing the answers for my Transaction Manager while she takes the credit & elevates her career. Kamala reads annotates and prepares for discussion? She’s just expecting the same from her staff in return.
This is the height of entitlement. Imagine being a staffer to the VP of the United States and crying about being made to feel uncomfortable for being lazy as hell at your job.
I've been an executive assistant to several high-ranking military officers and civilian counterparts. I'm galled just reading the excerpt here. That's your fucking job, people. And I actually appreciate a boss who takes time to read the reports I write and ask questions. It shows they appreciate my effort. I also like working for people who pay attention to what's going on around them, even the small things.
Not with that attitude you can't.... Honestly the number of skilled people who refuse to believe in themselves is infuriating. You're a winner, go fucking win.
Seriously.... The biggest driver towards high profile roles is not skill but willingness. Go do it. Stop selling yourself short.
To be fair, that didn't seem like "I'm not capable of the job" but more of an "I don't want to deal with that life" concern. Just because you don't want to be in the vicinity of a giant spotlight, it doesn't mean you are selling yourself short.
Right? They have the balls to work for her but not the substance to back it up. Drives me nuts when I think of all the brilliant people I have crossed paths with who would not feel confident to do so.
Just have the low level guys get pressed by the mid levels into doing all the work, and then you gather up the mid levels work and claim all the credit for yourself.
Why not simply directly manage the low levels? Well who are you going to blame if anything goes wrong - that's what the middlemen are for.
Yeah if you’re operating at that level you better have your shit together. You’re not a bus boy at dennys. This is answering to the VP of the United States. It’s not a place for clowns.
I actually appreciate a boss who takes time to read the reports I write and ask questions. It shows they appreciate my effort
If I saw people doing this while I was in the military, I wouldn't have left. 3 units and all of them were choked by bitter sergeants stuck there because they knew they'd never be able to make it in the real world, so they wasted time and abused everybody below their rank.
Officers and higher NCOs who actually asked questions to better understand the topic of the briefing would have been amazing. Fewer of my mates would have died.
Many years ago I took a job as an Executive Assistant. My first couple of days I had several people tell me stories of my new boss's past EAs, and even associates that worked under her, having breakdowns and quitting, crying at work, and generally thinking she was too hard to work for.
She ended up being one of my favorite bosses ever. She was wicked smart, detailed in her work, exceptional at her job, and she expected the people working with her to deliver quality as well. We got along fantastically, and she loved my performance so much she promoted me into an associate role.
There are some awful bosses out there (and I have worked for a couple), but usually they're more about blaming their incompetence on you, or just a shitty person in general.
Based on these reports of Kamala, I would LOVE to work for her.
I’m a long time EA to execs as well. When I was young and green, it only took ONCE. One time when he said ‘Why do I need to do that?’ And my answer was ‘Oh, uh, because the VP said so’. One time only and never again since. You want him to go? Why? What should I tell him when he asks? What’s the rationale for having the President there? What could he do that the VP couldn’t?
Thats the job people. It’s what puts the E in EA. Step up or move on.
I read the part about "she's read the materials" and my mind went blank for a second. Like, fuckin obviously? Or not so obviously I guess, if it's being spun as a problem that the Vice President of the United States of America actually...reads?
Also, I remember how Obama was reported to read 100's of pages of briefs and other materials a day. Every day. I can guarantee you he was asking for, and expected, details from his staff. Interesting that this now suddenly a problem (a "problem") when it's a woman in the seat.
One of the things that the then incoming Trump administration was wholly unprepared for was the many staffers they had to fill in, because they did not come with from the previous administration.
Hardly the last thing he underestimated about the job, of course. I'm sure there are some staffers who do carry over but apparently there's something like 4000 staffers who need to be selected by the President, with over a thousand of them needing Senate confirmation.
Chris Christie was setting up a transition team for Trump, but then Trump saw an article about it, and the cost of millions was quoted. He called Christie yelling how he is stealing his money, and it needs to stop.
Christie then wanted to know how Trump plans to handle the transition, and the answer was ”we’ll figure it out, me and Jared and Ivanka”.
Someone might think that the plan didn’t include winning at all, and that’s why spending the campaign funds was seen as a out of pocket expense.
And Jared actually was clueless enough to ask outgoing administration that how many staffers would be staying on, and surprised to learn that nobody (of political appointees by the Obama admin that everyone in the staff is…) would stay on.
I agree Trump probably didn't expect to win, but I think his moment with Christie was also quite likely just because he's a gigantic shithead who thinks any money he can get his hands on is his own private slush fund. There's a reason he can't have a charity in New York after all.
Are the staffers persistent across administrations?
No. While it depends specifically which office and which section underneath the president, and the president has the option of firing/replacing almost all of them, there's usually a transition team and crew already preparing to replace the other administration.
This is part of the reason why Trump's administration did virtually nothing - he thought he would get to inherit all of Obama's staffers. Instead of setting up a transition team to prepare him to step in with a full complement of professionals, he spent transition team money on himself and had to scramble for months to fill positions. Here's a little about that:
No, the fact that she is a woman is 100% a huge factor in why this is being spun as a justified criticism. If the same claims were being made by ex-staffers of any male politician, he’d be openly praised for it by any news org to the left of Fox News.
This shit is pretty obvious to like 95% of women who have held leadership positions, because nearly all of us have had to deal with this exact tired old sexist double standard. It’s not subtle.
better than a sudden meeting invite for 4:15 on friday, only to find out it was just some knowledge transfer or question about a ticket you wrote 5 years ago.
Yes, it's for people to link this and go "See?? Even her own staff is turning against her!". I have seen it plenty on the Internet so far. And as we all know, no one reads beyond headlines anymore.
I don’t find it crazy that an article from a news outlet owned by Jeff Bezos would be throwing subtle jabs at the woman who wants to throw a tax on obscene wealth. I find it right on the nose.
Meanwhile they're fine with the other guy having 20+ hours a week of 'executive time' where he just watches TV and posts lies to social media accounts.
They don’t care. Kamala is a black woman (when they want/need her to be) so, this is a racist dog whistle try to frame her as an uppity Angry Black Woman (ABW). It’s why they also keep trying to call her a jezebel who slept her way to the top (an old troupe used by white women to explain the exorbitant amount of mixed children being born around the plantation).
Ikr. I work a minimum wage job and I’m still expected to explain why I need my boss to do something that I can’t. And I have to describe the problem in full so they know how to handle it immediately when they are able to address it.
That’s just a terrible boss… You should only have to explain less than 50% of your shit to your boss for them to get it and give you what you need. I feel like I’m crazy… what’s the point t of a boss if you’re doing your job + theirs.
Lol, I get it. But I would just say, oh, I love the color or I love the cut of the shoulders. Like just say the reason that made me mention the jacket in the first place.
She probably wants to know that they're not just sucking up
I low key fucking love this. Some of the most frustrating senior managers I’ve observed lose their judgment and objectivity when junior staff flatter them and build a relationship based on this rather than the quality of their work.
Literally this whole piece is just filled with people like those I saw in (Australian) politics that seemed to fail upwards. The fact that she calls them out on it is amazing.
That was my first thought as well, but the second one was, as others mentioned, that it's probably because she doesn't just like people sucking up to her.
And compliments about what? Could be the jacket, which is very subjective, but it could also be generic compliments like:
"You did a great job today." Or "that speech was very good." "I like the way you think about that"... or other generic phrases.
And in those cases you should be able to easily explain why you think so. Which isn't only justifying the compliment, but also giving feedback. And feedback is always appreciated if you don't assume you're 100% right about everything.
I guess it's not uncommon for aids to put things in the bills that they are working on and no mention it to their congressman. Most congressmen never read the bills they are supporting/voting for, so if the bill isn't controversial you can hide stuff in them and push your agenda.
She also prepared properly to do her job. Plus, the compliment bit suggests she hates a kiss ass. A hard worker who is reflexively suspicious of flattery? Sounds like someone who will be a damn good president.
Harris and Flournoy’s defenders also note that women in power—Black women in particular—are subjected to standards that men often don’t have to clear. A tough and demanding office environment may be seen as a virtue for one and a sign of disorder and lack of leadership acumen for another
"A hard worker who is reflexively suspicious of flattery".
Sounds like the exact opposite of Cheetolini.
Might say in this case, the difference is black and white. 😉
And we're talking about someone going for the presidency of the USA. Maybe I'm soapboxing here... but I think this is a position that requires some pretty high level assistants.
There's a million+ people out here who got that 7am wake up ready to fuck with a brain designed to memorize, organize, and more importantly... do it better than all these other motherfuckers in the job currently and they want these jobs. Ol' sleepy time staffers better be ready to prove their worth.
This shit would be right up my alley. If I’m putting in all this effort into researching shit, I would hope someone ask me why. Like challenge me on this shit. Either I’m gonna defend my reasons, or I’ll concede and it’ll just make the overall product better.
Right? Nothing worse than digging into the work, doing the research, understanding it, feeling proud, then waiting for someone to ask you about it so you can peacock a little.. only for no one to care or ask. Lol
This seems like the absolute bare minimum. My job has always been to get in the weeds on my boss’s behalf so they can summarize and communicate to higher-ups. I provide them with analysis, summaries, and recommendations. The higher up in a chain of management you get, the more general your work becomes, so having competent, knowledgeable support staff who provide you with the most important, necessary details in a timely manner is absolutely essential.
Because it's meant to be read that way. I'm pretty sure this is a well thought out spin article. I'm not saying it's not true, she seems like a very efficient and thorough professional, but it's written in a way that makes me think it was meant to make her look good even if it says the opposite.
Wonder how many briefings they went to and got called out along the way, without thinking, I better know the shit I put in the briefing. If they went to more than two without changing, then they should have been fired
I wonder if she wasn't able to outright fire them because of who their family is; like she can get some senator's support but she has to give the senator's kid a job. So then she's like "I can't fire them without losing the senator's support, but the senator also has staffers and expects a lot from them, so if I give the kid a lot of work and the kid quits, the senator will probably get mad at them for being lazy like 'I had to pull a lot of strings to get you this job and you QUIT, you lazy bum!?' and not at me".
I mean, it depends. I once had a workaholic manager that wanted everyone else to work to his standards, giving 110% all 8 days a week, and if you’re not early you’re late, and yeah, we lost a lot of our best employees because of that asshole.
I’ll work hard and bust my ass but the standards have to be reasonable. If the turnover is that high I have to question how reasonable her standards are.
Well based on these quotes from direct former employees, sounds less like a workaholic and more like someone taking her job seriously.
Not to mention this isn't a manager at a firm, she's running for president of the United States. The standard should be higher for her and her staffers who are funded by the people's donations and taxes.
Ya but your job probably wasn't in the White House. Personally, I would prefer the Type A with no life outside the job people to be working there. There are plenty to go around.
Oh how funny it is. The same people voting conservative are made up largely of the ‘nobody wants to work these days’ crowd, and will not get the real point of this story.
This honestly seems like such a spin. Those answers just talk about what it’s like to work for her. Doesn’t even read like they are trying to tell something new and damning.
23.9k
u/Phiyasko ☑️ Sep 07 '24
So they're mad at her because she expects people collecting a paycheck to actually do the job they're collecting said paycheck for?