[Night Hides Not]

Interesting point GH. I'd like to see an analysis of that. Off the top of my head, I'll name a few that IMO would definitely make the denominator:

Pence, Bolton, Milley, Sessions, Tillerson, Mnuchin, Carson, Mad Dog Mattis, Esper, Barr, McConnell's wife (Chao), Kelly,

The only one I'd put on the numerator is one: Ben Carson.

1/16 = 6%. That's what you get when the first criterion for working for Trump is blind loyalty.

[going hot]

so, a staff of some 450, and 15 cabinet officers as the denominator, and 16 riffraff as the numerator, comes out to roughly 3.5 % richards.

Not too high a number actually.

Then there are the over 200 judges appointed. How many of them are/were failures?

When looked at in totality, his failures, although they sucked, were well within the margin of ratio for any large hiring groups.

However, with a bone to pick, the focus becomes critical.

[odawg]

“That’s what you get when the first criterion for working for Trump is blind loyalty.”

You think those you listed were blindly loyal?

Trump leaned too heavily on his business background, where people were hired who had accomplished things.

Now, what these people did with their offices in another thing.

Now, connecting Trump as one who demands blind loyalty is just pure snot on your part, since he would never have risen to the heights he has with that attitude — never seeking out the possible negative sides of his positions.

By the way, how man billions have you accrued in your lifetime, how many TV shows, golf courses, etc., if you are so superior in your judgment over Trump?