John Kelly agrees to stay at White House through 2020 election

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785


From the same source.

To be sure, the news that Kelly has accepted the president's offer to stay on board does not eliminate the possibility that he could resign or be fired. One advisor, partly joking, told CNBC that the president could still choose to fire Kelly even though Kelly has "agreed" to remain.
The president has a track record of praising administration officials before they hit the chopping block.

Sorry, but this article STILL doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me.

Lol that's what your'e clinging to now? It's not impossible for him to resign or be fired? That's true of everyone in every position under every President.

You're one of the ones who got duped into thinking he was leaving weren't you?

"Erm, he may not be leaving now but, like, it's possible he'll leave someday. I predict he won't be in the White House 100 years from now!"

You guys really have fallen far.

a reply to: face23785

Lol that's what your'e clinging to now?

I'm not "clinging" to anything. That's kinda the whole "no confidence" thing, there's nothing to cling to in that article. So, Kelly has acquiesced to some pseudo olive branch in Trump's tiny hands. Like the article says, One advisor, partly joking, told CNBC that the president could still choose to fire Kelly even though Kelly has "agreed" to remain.

The president has a track record of praising administration officials before they hit the chopping block.

Again, I'm sorry, but your article doesn't instill confidence in me in Kelly's job security or his fealty to Trump.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

Lol that's what your'e clinging to now?

I'm not "clinging" to anything. That's kinda the whole "no confidence" thing, there's nothing to cling to in that article. So, Kelly has acquiesced to some pseudo olive branch in Trump's tiny hands. Like the article says, One advisor, partly joking, told CNBC that the president could still choose to fire Kelly even though Kelly has "agreed" to remain.

The president has a track record of praising administration officials before they hit the chopping block.

Again, I'm sorry, but your article doesn't instill confidence in me in Kelly's job security or his fealty to Trump.

So because the article doesn't say he has the position for life, you have no confidence? Trump asked him to stay until after the 2020 election. He said yes.

Of course he could still choose to fire him at any time, that is the power of every President. You might as well just say you don't have confidence anyone in the executive branch has any job security. Technically they don't. That in itself is no indication they're going anywhere anytime soon. So yes, you're clinging, and what you're clinging to is pretty thin. Any news outlet can publish a story every day saying "the President still has the power to fire [insert cabinet or staff member]" and you're going to translate that into "I have no confidence this person has any job security"?

Sorry you got taken for another ride, but Kelly isn't on his way out.

a reply to: face23785

So because the article doesn't say he has the position for life, you have no confidence?

I didn't say that. You have quite the habit of putting words in people's mouths. It comes across as defensiveness. I'm sorry, but you brought it up, John Kelly's job security, not me. Your article doesn't instill any confidence in my belief that John Kelly's job is secure or in John Kelly's fealty to Mr. Trump any more than before I read the article.

Trump has fired people, or accepted their letters of resignation, right after telling the press that he had ultimate confidence in that individual several times before. Trump's word can't be trusted.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

So because the article doesn't say he has the position for life, you have no confidence?

I didn't say that. You have quite the habit of putting words in people's mouths. It comes across as defensiveness. I'm sorry, but you brought it up, John Kelly's job security, not me. Your article doesn't instill any confidence in my belief that John Kelly's job is secure or in John Kelly's fealty to Mr. Trump any more than before I read the article.

Trump has fired people, or accepted their letters of resignation, right after telling the press that he had ultimate confidence in that individual several times before. Trump's word can't be trusted.

Dude you literally quoted a part of the article where it said it's still possible for him to be fired and said that doesn't give you confidence.

The only other alternative is that it would be impossible for him to be fired. No one working for any president has ever had such an arrangement.

And yeah, pretend you weren't talking about his job security, when all of your posts have been about there still being some physically possible way he could not be the Chief of Staff eventually. That's clearly very important to you, since you're having such a hard time accepting that the President wants him to stay there at least another 2 years.

If you want to keep embarrassing yourself, be my guest. Kelly still isn't going anywhere. Your disappointment is hilarious.

a reply to: face23785

Your disappointment is hilarious.

There you go again. I never said I was disappointed. I said the article inspires no new confidence for me in Kelly's job security. Again, I'm sorry that your argument isn't persuasive, but there's no need to attack me because I'm not buying the product you're selling.

Move on, man. You're obsession with trying to convince me of something I'm not buying is getting creepy.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Wonder how he'll like working for Pence?

Yes Silly, you'll just LOOOVE Pence!

You'd be wishing for the good Ole days of The Donald if you were to experience a Pence Administration.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

Your disappointment is hilarious.

There you go again. I never said I was disappointed. I said the article inspires no new confidence for me in Kelly's job security. Again, I'm sorry that your argument isn't persuasive, but there's no need to attack me because I'm not buying the product you're selling.

Move on, man. You're obsession with trying to convince me of something I'm not buying is getting creepy.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I know you're too arrogant to admit you were wrong.

Wait, job security? I thought you weren't talking about that? I brought it up remember?

Oh, so you were talking about that. Anything else you want to backtrack on?

a reply to: face23785

Wait, job security? I thought you weren't talking about that?

There you go again, putting words I never said in my mouth!

I'm not confident in Kelly's job security, and your article does nothing to alleve my suspicions. This is what Trump does. After someone undermines or offends him, he reminds the public of his confidence in the individual, asks for undying loyalty and then fires the guy in a tweet! LOL

I don't think Trump is going to forget how Kelly stabbed him in the back after the Helsinki press conference. And, in my opinion, that's the only reason this article is out. People are afraid Trump is going to fire Kelly, one of the only grown ups in the White House!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

Wait, job security? I thought you weren't talking about that?

There you go again, putting words I never said in my mouth!

I'm not confident in Kelly's job security, and your article does nothing to alleve my suspicions. This is what Trump does. After someone undermines or offends him, he reminds the public of his confidence in the individual, asks for undying loyalty and then fires the guy in a tweet! LOL

I don't think Trump is going to forget how Kelly stabbed him in the back after the Helsinki press conference. And, in my opinion, that's the only reason this article is out. People are afraid Trump is going to fire Kelly, one of the only grown ups in the White House!

Let me say this slow so you can understand.

A few messages ago you claimed I was the one who brought up Kelly's job security. Then you just said the article didn't give you confidence in his job security. So in one message you're saying you didn't bring that up, then the next minute you're saying that's what you were trying to say.

Make up your mind. You're talking yourself in circles because you can't get over the fact today's news dispels any false notions the media may have given you that Kelly is on his way out. The article makes it clear he has as much job security as anyone else who works for Trump. It's possible he'll be fired or resign, just like everyone else who works there. There's no indication either of those things is about to happen though. Just bottle up that disappointment. I know it sucks when the media lies to you, but it happens.

You can have the last word, no doubt full of more denial and double-speak. I can at least give you that, since that's all you're gonna take away from this.

a reply to: face23785


I didn't author this thread, about John Kelly's job security, you did. Therefore, you brought "it" up, not me. I just replied to your thread to say that your article, that you use to cite Kelly's job security, left me with "no confidence" of Kelly's job security.

Did I explain that slow enough, and in small enough words for you to understand?