VP Kamala Harris Had 92-Percent Staff Turnover

[KhunLA]

Some might judge a boss, candidate, company, by the people that stand behind them, and want to be a part of their, it's legacy.  

 

92 ish % ... nuff said.   Seem the OVP isn't exactly an open book on info either.  Hmm, maybe because the allotted budget is a we bit over spending, which leaves a pretty big question, where did the rest go ?

 

Some highlights ... full article here

 

VP Kamala Harris Had 92-Percent Staff Turnover During Her First Three Years

... “People really, really do not want to work for Kamala Harris,” wrote former staffer Dan McLaughlin, January 2022.

 

... “Working for Harris is a nightmare, not just because she rides her staff hard, but also because she does so without the competence, decisiveness, and effectiveness that inspires people in politics to suffer under demanding bosses,” Dan McLaughlin wrote in a January 2022 National Review article titled, “People Really, Really Do Not Want to Work for Kamala Harris.”

 

... We calculated that for VP Harris’s 28 staff listed in the Senate report, the 2021 salaries added up to $2,334, 223.  But President Joseph Biden’s congressional budget submission shows the OVP got $5 million for 23 full time staff in 2021 and requested over $6 million for 27 full time staff in 2022.

 

Not like people didn't get an incentive to stay, with these salaries.  You really must not want to be associated with someone to pass up those salaries.

 

 

 

[charleskerins]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Some might judge a boss, candidate, company, by the people that stand behind them, and want to be a part of their, it's legacy.  

 

92 ish % ... nuff said.   Seem the OVP isn't exactly an open book on info either.  Hmm, maybe because the allotted budget is a we bit over spending, which leaves a pretty big question, where did the rest go ?

 

Some highlights ... full article here

 

VP Kamala Harris Had 92-Percent Staff Turnover During Her First Three Years

... “People really, really do not want to work for Kamala Harris,” wrote former staffer Dan McLaughlin, January 2022.

 

... “Working for Harris is a nightmare, not just because she rides her staff hard, but also because she does so without the competence, decisiveness, and effectiveness that inspires people in politics to suffer under demanding bosses,” Dan McLaughlin wrote in a January 2022 National Review article titled, “People Really, Really Do Not Want to Work for Kamala Harris.”

 

... We calculated that for VP Harris’s 28 staff listed in the Senate report, the 2021 salaries added up to $2,334, 223.  But President Joseph Biden’s congressional budget submission shows the OVP got $5 million for 23 full time staff in 2021 and requested over $6 million for 27 full time staff in 2022.

 

Not like people didn't get an incentive to stay, with these salaries.  You really must not want to be associated with someone to pass up those salaries.

 

 

 

I smell desperation  " ‘Idiot,’ ‘Dope,’ ‘Moron’: How Trump’s aides have insulted the boss"  author Rebecca Morin

Edited July 25 by charleskerins
nm

[spidermike007]

Well it doesn't really mean anything when she's running against a man who could not keep his own staff at the White House, and would throw virtually everybody who resigned under the bus. 

 

We have no idea whether or not this information is correct or was planted by an extremely desperate Trump, who is running very scared at the moment. 

 

Would anyone like to take Wagers on the possibility of trump facing Harris at debate? My guess is that he will bow out as she would dissect him like a corner at an autopsy, with her additional 50 IQ points over the man. 

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Well it doesn't really mean anything when she's running against a man who could not keep his own staff at the White House, and would throw virtually everybody who resigned under the bus. 

 

We have no idea whether or not this information is correct or was planted by an extremely desperate Trump, who is running very scared at the moment. 

 

Would anyone like to take Wagers on the possibility of trump facing Harris at debate? My guess is that he will bow out as she would dissect him like a corner at an autopsy, with her additional 50 IQ points over the man. 

I don't think she would, actually. What is her track record at debates so far? Look no further than the 2020 primaries. She does not do well when questioned directly or when she needs to answer extemporaneously.

 

As for Trump, check his debates with Hillary Clinton. Some say he won and some that he lost, but it cannot be denied that he at least did respectably well. And Hillary is far the intellectual superior to Kamala, as well as a far better debater. So, if Trump could handle Hillary, he won't have trouble with Kamala. Especially if the debate is in a more GOP friendly arena. How about using Fox News? 

[mfd101]

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Would anyone like to take Wagers on the possibility of trump facing Harris at debate? My guess is that he will bow out as she would dissect him like a corner at an autopsy, with her additional 50 IQ points over the man. 

I'm looking forward to it. Will be a real test for both of them - Trump not good with a woman, Harris having to get down 'n dirty with real policy questions. Either of them could bomb real bad.

 

 

[wwest5829]

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I don't think she would, actually. What is her track record at debates so far? Look no further than the 2020 primaries. She does not do well when questioned directly or when she needs to answer extemporaneously.

 

As for Trump, check his debates with Hillary Clinton. Some say he won and some that he lost, but it cannot be denied that he at least did respectably well. And Hillary is far the intellectual superior to Kamala, as well as a far better debater. So, if Trump could handle Hillary, he won't have trouble with Kamala. Especially if the debate is in a more GOP friendly arena. How about using Fox News? 

Yes, agree Trump comes across as in control and forceful … 30+ lies but in control and forceful.

[spidermike007]

7 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

I'm looking forward to it. Will be a real test for both of them - Trump not good with a woman, Harris having to get down 'n dirty with real policy questions. Either of them could bomb real bad.

 

 

It is far more likely that Trump will bomb, he's famous for being unprepared, he's famous for improvising, and he's not particularly good on his feet, nor is he very good with facts. On the other hand Harris has him beaten by at least 50 IQ points, and being a former prosecutor she's very good when it comes to arguments. 

[spidermike007]

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I don't think she would, actually. What is her track record at debates so far? Look no further than the 2020 primaries. She does not do well when questioned directly or when she needs to answer extemporaneously.

 

As for Trump, check his debates with Hillary Clinton. Some say he won and some that he lost, but it cannot be denied that he at least did respectably well. And Hillary is far the intellectual superior to Kamala, as well as a far better debater. So, if Trump could handle Hillary, he won't have trouble with Kamala. Especially if the debate is in a more GOP friendly arena. How about using Fox News? 

I love it when his supporters continue to overestimate him, and it's going to be huge advantage when people continue to underestimate her. 

[mikeymike100]

16 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Well it doesn't really mean anything when she's running against a man who could not keep his own staff at the White House, and would throw virtually everybody who resigned under the bus. 

 

We have no idea whether or not this information is correct or was planted by an extremely desperate Trump, who is running very scared at the moment. 

 

Would anyone like to take Wagers on the possibility of trump facing Harris at debate? My guess is that he will bow out as she would dissect him like a corner at an autopsy, with her additional 50 IQ points over the man. 

"My guess is that he will bow out as she would dissect him like a corner at an autopsy, with her additional 50 IQ points over the man." 

Love the sarcasm..good one!..

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory post and reply has been removed

@NORDO

[ignore it]

Well they musta quit cuz firing those DEI hires would bring some neg press.

 

 

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

It is far more likely that Trump will bomb, he's famous for being unprepared, he's famous for improvising, and he's not particularly good on his feet, nor is he very good with facts. On the other hand Harris has him beaten by at least 50 IQ points, and being a former prosecutor she's very good when it comes to arguments. 

Funny though that she has never shown that yet.  She may have been a prosecutor but that was a while ago, and she was rather famous for never actually being in too many courtrooms.  Not sure why people think she is such a braniac- Howard University (her alma mater) doesn't even crack the top 100 universities in America.  University of Cali Law school was the #82 Law School in the States. Not exactly Ivy League.

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

“People really, really do not want to work for Kamala Harris,” wrote former staffer Dan McLaughlin, January 2022.

A poisonous staffer.

"Why Dan McLaughlin is Wrong About Trump’s Prosecutions," Posted by Martin Longman | Dec 20, 2023

https://progresspond.com/2023/12/20/why-dan-mclaughlin-is-wrong-about-trumps-prosecutions/

Example:

• "Dan McLaughlin argues in the National Review that any attempt to convict Donald Trump of a crime prior to Election Day 2024 is political in nature and therefore illegitimate."

[FritsSikkink]

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Some might judge a boss, candidate, company, by the people that stand behind them, and want to be a part of their, it's legacy.  

 

92 ish % ... nuff said.   Seem the OVP isn't exactly an open book on info either.  Hmm, maybe because the allotted budget is a we bit over spending, which leaves a pretty big question, where did the rest go ?

 

Some highlights ... full article here

 

VP Kamala Harris Had 92-Percent Staff Turnover During Her First Three Years

... “People really, really do not want to work for Kamala Harris,” wrote former staffer Dan McLaughlin, January 2022.

 

... “Working for Harris is a nightmare, not just because she rides her staff hard, but also because she does so without the competence, decisiveness, and effectiveness that inspires people in politics to suffer under demanding bosses,” Dan McLaughlin wrote in a January 2022 National Review article titled, “People Really, Really Do Not Want to Work for Kamala Harris.”

 

... We calculated that for VP Harris’s 28 staff listed in the Senate report, the 2021 salaries added up to $2,334, 223.  But President Joseph Biden’s congressional budget submission shows the OVP got $5 million for 23 full time staff in 2021 and requested over $6 million for 27 full time staff in 2022.

 

Not like people didn't get an incentive to stay, with these salaries.  You really must not want to be associated with someone to pass up those salaries.

 

 

 

How many ended up in jail compared to Trump staff?

[ChicagoExpat]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Would anyone like to take Wagers on the possibility of trump facing Harris at debate? My guess is that he will bow out as she would dissect him like a corner at an autopsy, with her additional 50 IQ points over the man. 

I've seen you say this a few times.  He has already said he'd debate her.  And quite honestly, he wins debates.  He eviscerated his Republican primary opponents, Biden, and Hillary.  Will she "dissect him like a corner at an autopsy"?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  Much is made of her being a prosecutor previously, but was she good?  Will that count?  I watched her at a Senate Judicial Committee years ago (2016?): she came in late, chatted loudly and rudely with Corey Booker while her colleagues were holding the hearing, asked three gotcha questions and walked out without listening to the responses.  Is this relevant?  Not sure... but I was unimpressed with her from that point onward.

[ChicagoExpat]

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Not like people didn't get an incentive to stay, with these salaries.  You really must not want to be associated with someone to pass up those salaries.

Amigo -- between the cost of living in DC and the salaries these people could get in the private sector, these salaries are trash.  Truly, they are not an incentive to anyone to stick around.

[ChicagoExpat]

50 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Did she not flunk the bar the first time as well?

Yes, she did.  While 73% of her class passed it.  But she's 50 points higher IQ than God Himself, so, you know.

[BobBKK]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Well it doesn't really mean anything when she's running against a man who could not keep his own staff at the White House, and would throw virtually everybody who resigned under the bus. 

 

We have no idea whether or not this information is correct or was planted by an extremely desperate Trump, who is running very scared at the moment. 

 

Would anyone like to take Wagers on the possibility of trump facing Harris at debate? My guess is that he will bow out as she would dissect him like a corner at an autopsy, with her additional 50 IQ points over the man. 

 I think he would, and she has many weak spots - the border, for one, lying anent Biden about his health and everyone's estimation that she has done zero in four years as VP. I think as CNN held the last debate it is only fair someone else holds the next one - preferably a neutral. ABC is appalling biased.

[BobBKK]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

It is far more likely that Trump will bomb, he's famous for being unprepared, he's famous for improvising, and he's not particularly good on his feet, nor is he very good with facts. On the other hand Harris has him beaten by at least 50 IQ points, and being a former prosecutor she's very good when it comes to arguments. 

 Please supply links—VP Harris is 50 points higher in IQ than Trump—not opinion pieces but data, links from neutral sources.

[Yellowtail]

18 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

How many ended up in jail compared to Trump staff?

How many did the Bided DOJ target? 

[Tommyincambodia]

First  of all,the quote by this Mc Laughin(IF TRUE) was over 2.5 years ago. So,I don't believe it . And,anything else derogatory  about her is also probably false.

[transam]

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Some might judge a boss, candidate, company, by the people that stand behind them, and want to be a part of their, it's legacy.  

 

92 ish % ... nuff said.   Seem the OVP isn't exactly an open book on info either.  Hmm, maybe because the allotted budget is a we bit over spending, which leaves a pretty big question, where did the rest go ?

 

Some highlights ... full article here

 

VP Kamala Harris Had 92-Percent Staff Turnover During Her First Three Years

... “People really, really do not want to work for Kamala Harris,” wrote former staffer Dan McLaughlin, January 2022.

 

... “Working for Harris is a nightmare, not just because she rides her staff hard, but also because she does so without the competence, decisiveness, and effectiveness that inspires people in politics to suffer under demanding bosses,” Dan McLaughlin wrote in a January 2022 National Review article titled, “People Really, Really Do Not Want to Work for Kamala Harris.”

 

... We calculated that for VP Harris’s 28 staff listed in the Senate report, the 2021 salaries added up to $2,334, 223.  But President Joseph Biden’s congressional budget submission shows the OVP got $5 million for 23 full time staff in 2021 and requested over $6 million for 27 full time staff in 2022.

 

Not like people didn't get an incentive to stay, with these salaries.  You really must not want to be associated with someone to pass up those salaries.

 

 

 

So what, and you told us you don't like your country..........🤔

[Presnock]

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Some might judge a boss, candidate, company, by the people that stand behind them, and want to be a part of their, it's legacy.  

 

92 ish % ... nuff said.   Seem the OVP isn't exactly an open book on info either.  Hmm, maybe because the allotted budget is a we bit over spending, which leaves a pretty big question, where did the rest go ?

 

Some highlights ... full article here

 

VP Kamala Harris Had 92-Percent Staff Turnover During Her First Three Years

... “People really, really do not want to work for Kamala Harris,” wrote former staffer Dan McLaughlin, January 2022.

 

... “Working for Harris is a nightmare, not just because she rides her staff hard, but also because she does so without the competence, decisiveness, and effectiveness that inspires people in politics to suffer under demanding bosses,” Dan McLaughlin wrote in a January 2022 National Review article titled, “People Really, Really Do Not Want to Work for Kamala Harris.”

 

... We calculated that for VP Harris’s 28 staff listed in the Senate report, the 2021 salaries added up to $2,334, 223.  But President Joseph Biden’s congressional budget submission shows the OVP got $5 million for 23 full time staff in 2021 and requested over $6 million for 27 full time staff in 2022.

 

Not like people didn't get an incentive to stay, with these salaries.  You really must not want to be associated with someone to pass up those salaries.

 

 

 

If her office got those funds requested by the President then where did the rest go?

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Would anyone like to take Wagers on the possibility of trump facing Harris at debate? My guess is that he will bow out as she would dissect him like a corner at an autopsy, with her additional 50 IQ points over the man. 

 

Who will listen and how will they judge the situation?

Trump will lie and lie and lie, and if he has the chance, he will talk over her.

For his usual MAGA fans this might look like he wins, like: Look at this strong man, he just talks, and he talks louder than her.

Intellectuals will likely know that he lies, and that shouting won't make it better.

But the problem is obviously that intellectuals don't have to be convinced that Trump is not suitable for that job.

And I don't have any hope that the usual MAGA crowd will even try to check the facts. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

In terms of opinions of associated parties pretty much every smart person in the room with Trump during his presidency said he was a tool. 

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, wwest5829 said:

Yes, agree Trump comes across as in control and forceful … 30+ lies but in control and forceful.

Like a rapist then?

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

Who will listen and how will they judge the situation?

Trump will lie and lie and lie, and if he has the chance, he will talk over her.

For his usual MAGA fans this might look like he wins, like: Look at this strong man, he just talks, and he talks louder than her.

Intellectuals will likely know that he lies, and that shouting won't make it better.

But the problem is obviously that intellectuals don't have to be convinced that Trump is not suitable for that job.

And I don't have any hope that the usual MAGA crowd will even try to check the facts. 

Clearly you have not been checking the "facts", and you seem like a pretty smart guy. 

 

But yes, most "intellectuals" (certainly the ones that identify as such) and virtually all of academia are leftists, and as such, anti-Trump. 

 

 

[Lacessit]

The haters are really out in force now. It is doing their heads in that an articulate younger woman of color has the temerity to challenge their farting smelly angry old orange idol. You know, the one who wouldn't wear a mask during COVID because it spoiled his makeup in front of the cameras.

 

Expect every bit of misinformation to be dragged up from right-wing cesspools, along with big dollops of racism and misogyny.

 

The party of law and order going after a former prosecutor, while supporting a felon. The GOP can't sink any lower than that, can it?

 

 

[LatPhrao]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

I don't think she would, actually. What is her track record at debates so far? Look no further than the 2020 primaries. She does not do well when questioned directly or when she needs to answer extemporaneously.

 

As for Trump, check his debates with Hillary Clinton. Some say he won and some that he lost, but it cannot be denied that he at least did respectably well. And Hillary is far the intellectual superior to Kamala, as well as a far better debater. So, if Trump could handle Hillary, he won't have trouble with Kamala. Especially if the debate is in a more GOP friendly arena. How about using Fox News? 

"I don't think..."    consistently

[bradiston]

39 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 I think he would, and she has many weak spots - the border, for one, lying anent Biden about his health and everyone's estimation that she has done zero in four years as VP. I think as CNN held the last debate it is only fair someone else holds the next one - preferably a neutral. ABC is appalling biased.

How about Al Jazeera? Seems fair.