Yes, resumes are an incredibly subjective thing–what one person finds effective, another finds annoying.
But since I've spent an afternoon reading them in the waiting area of a car service place, here are my hot takes on resumes and applying for a job:
— Christina Reynolds (@creynoldsnc) December 28, 2017
Month: January 2019
Trump’s poll numbers are falling
That is a terrible approval rating. But future generations will look back at this era and shake their heads, wondering how 37% of Americans could possibly approve of Trump after these last two years. https://t.co/UYEq2Z01Hp
— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) January 15, 2019
Trump approval rating continues on a slow but fairly linear decline since the shutdown began. If he's being told this is helping him politically, he's probably not getting good advice. https://t.co/j7XEedEnAf pic.twitter.com/UU3KpR7qjL
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 13, 2019
Brand new CNN poll: "The President's disapproval rating has climbed five points since last month." https://t.co/uM7MkWTJCL
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 13, 2019
per Gallup, Trump is the only POTUS in history of polling never to reach 50% approval in first 2 years
also the only POTUS whose average approval for first 2 years (39%) was below 40%
averages for predecessors: Obama 52%, GWB 70%, Clinton 48%, GHWB 70%, Reagan 50%, Carter 54% https://t.co/lNKXsDrCmu
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) January 15, 2019
Trump has talked about leaving NATO
Putin should be thrilled!
Getting the US out of NATO would be a longstanding dream of Vladimir Putin.
Why has @realDonaldTrump acted so many times like he is beholden to Putin?
It should never, ever be a close question whether the President of the United States is a Russian asset. But here we are. https://t.co/Ok0MMFldkH
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) January 15, 2019
Several times over 2018, Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from NATO. Aides feared Trump could return to his threat as allied military spending continued to lag behind the goals the president had set. @julianbarnes @helenecooper https://t.co/ea90QgxqzZ
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) January 15, 2019
The irony — or tragedy — is that Trump's annoyance at NATO "ripping the US off" is based on a complete misunderstanding of how the alliance is financed. He keeps saying the same wrong thing he said in the campaign. https://t.co/oHYkb5UJW5
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) January 15, 2019
For those wondering, What has NATO done for us lately: Greg Miller's important book on Trump-Russia https://t.co/Bo3dA9oyNw points out it was Dutch intell that first detected Russian hack of DNC servers in aid of Donald Trump pic.twitter.com/rJZo2pGqiy
— David Frum (@davidfrum) January 15, 2019
How about a Senate resolution reaffirming 99-1 (assuming Rand Paul a No) US commitment to defense of NATO allies https://t.co/oARojUdwSG
— David Frum (@davidfrum) January 15, 2019
Throughout last year, President Trump reportedly told top administration officials he wanted to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. https://t.co/UkqnKuIpXf
— Axios (@axios) January 15, 2019
Putin would like nothing more than for NATO to splinter and then fall apart. Trump has been doing his best to drive a wedge between NATO members since he became president. And Trump apparently wants to destroy the organization too, which is Vladimir Putin’s greatest fantasy. https://t.co/WVY7d8nz5W
— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) January 15, 2019
A weakened NATO is one of Russia President Vladimir Putin's major geopolitical goals https://t.co/sjvYZhXhNt
— Kim Hjelmgaard (@khjelmgaard) January 15, 2019
Analysis: Trump’s NATO isolationism is at least 30 years old https://t.co/3L43wcpSQw
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 15, 2019
If true: Trump should immediately and publicly state his apparent wish to withdraw from NATO so he can be promptly impeached, convicted, and removed from office.
— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) January 15, 2019
Great news on the 2020 Census
A court stopped the Trump administration from adding the citizenship question. It was a bad idea and they lied about why they wanted it.
BREAKING: Federal judge in New York bars U.S. Commerce Department from adding citizenship question to the 2020 census. https://t.co/L2woqxPv9j
— The Associated Press (@AP) January 15, 2019
BREAKING: Federal court blocks citizenship question from 2020 census.
“The evidence is clear that Secretary Ross’s rationale was pretextual…the court can not sustain agency action founded on a pretextual or sham justification that conceals the true “basis” for the decision.”
— Christina Wilkie (@christinawilkie) January 15, 2019
Pleased a federal judge struck down the attempt by the Trump Administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
Also, the judge basically called Secretary Wilbur Ross a liar.
Why is there so much lying by the @realDonaldTrump Administration? https://t.co/iXfOSzOzg7
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) January 15, 2019
Federal judge rules against Trump administration's push for citizenship question on 2020 Census, case likely headed to Supreme Court https://t.co/zkhJ2D9qjn
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 15, 2019
BREAKING: Judge rules against Trump admin plans to add #citizenshipquestion to #2020census, setting up a likely Supreme Court fight. A win for plaintiffs represented by @NewYorkStateAG @ACLU @NYCLU @arnoldporter, ruling is expected to be appealed to 2nd Circuit by @TheJusticeDept pic.twitter.com/NGfardQ8xQ
— Hansi Lo Wang (@hansilowang) January 15, 2019
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tax proposal
The right wing makes personal attacks on her clothes and dance video. Meanwhile OAC is making serious proposals and started a valuable discussion on tax rates.
Opponents are (I think deliberately) saying her position is to tax all income of people making $10 million at 70%. She is only talking about $10 million and up.
This is very much worth watching.
But be *sure* to watch to the end, where Erik Brynjolfsson gives the precise, “well, actually …” answer to a “can you give me any real-world example??” question. https://t.co/RBg1JCZ9cm
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) January 24, 2019
@AOC’s tax hike idea is not about soaking the rich. It’s about putting a cap on the plutocracy’s income. https://t.co/EsnugwMSXW
— Eduardo Porter (@portereduardo) January 22, 2019
About 6 in 10 Americans agree with @AOC and support a marginal tax of 70% on the wealthy. https://t.co/t3VXWMw13C
— Janie Velencia (@JanieVelencia) January 18, 2019
A new poll found @AOC's proposed tax plan to be "popular in all regions of the country" https://t.co/UGoEWUUuzg
— Intelligencer (@intelligencer) January 20, 2019
NEW POLL: Majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent https://t.co/k5quW8eXYI (via @HillTVLive) pic.twitter.com/kp4l6CnB2M
— The Hill (@thehill) January 15, 2019
a 70% top tax rate on $10-M earners doesn't mean taking 70% of their income
in 1981, Reagan's 1st year, top rate was 70%. richest 1% paid average 33.1% overall
in 1989, w/28% top rate, they paid avg 27.9%
in 2014, w/39.6% top rate, they paid avg 33.6%https://t.co/IvBIVnUEBF
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) January 11, 2019
Presumably the Minority Whip knows what marginal tax rates are? It's not 70 percent of all income, but 70 percent of any income earned ABOVE $10 million. You may disagree with the policy but a politician has an obligation to describe it correctly. https://t.co/lPSeou1XJf
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) January 5, 2019
Congressman @SteveScalise is either lying or doesn’t understand marginal tax rates. Or, both, I guess. https://t.co/7t4sJAvdHg
— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) January 5, 2019
As you know, from 1936 to 1980 the top marginal rate was 70% and above. E.g. between 1952 and 1963 (which included the Eisenhower presidency) the top marginal rate was above 90%. America had high economic growth and shared prosperity. We created national highways system etc. pic.twitter.com/PTLdue5IYI
— Jennifer Taub (@jentaub) January 6, 2019
70% income taxes on high-earners are both familiar (we had them not that long ago) and supported by the bulk of expert research. It is the DC establishment that's dumb on this, not AOC. https://t.co/epq7lYxCqA
— David Roberts (@drvox) January 4, 2019
Just for context: top marginal tax rate was *over* 70% through entirety of post-WW II US economic boom. (Lowered to 50% in 1981.)
Doesn't mean it’s right rate now, but this is not some unheard-of Stalinist gaffe. https://t.co/XmpyVU15FQ
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) January 5, 2019
Look, it's unquestionably true that we used to tax the ultra rich at much, much, much higher rates than we do now. It's true the top marginal rate hit a lower percent of earned income, but we taxed the highest income a LOT more. People implying otherwise are being misleading. pic.twitter.com/ffgnAZHjRQ
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) January 5, 2019
This is how @FoxAndFriends tricks viewers: @Kilmeade said @AOC "wants people taxed as high as 80, 90% if you make $10 million or more." Huh? She said "60 or 70%" on "your 10 millionth dollar."
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 7, 2019
Good piece from Bloomberg pointing out that Sweden actually has a top marginal rate of almost 70% — and grass is hardly growing in the streets 1/ https://t.co/BM8ERHZcDE
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) January 9, 2019
Decline in newspaper employees and circulation
Bad news.
The number of newspaper newsroom employees fell from about 71,000 in 2008 to 39,000 in 2017, a decline of 45%. https://t.co/Iptn2zMTGV pic.twitter.com/F9WW5L4C5p
— Pew Research Center (@pewresearch) January 7, 2019
Dallas Morning News Cuts 43 Jobs, Including 20 In Newsroom, In 'Digital-First' Pivot https://t.co/oLcVic7oWh pic.twitter.com/qSNu4ECTHO
— Aakshi Gupta (@aakshi97) January 13, 2019
Since 2000, newspapers shed 241,000 jobs. The entire coal industry employs only 50,000 miners. https://t.co/IbOp43aSrw pic.twitter.com/gMMBJtwDPY
— Bradford Pearson (@BradfordPearson) July 24, 2018
NEW DATA: Estimated total US daily newspaper circulation in 2017 was 31M for weekday, 34M for Sunday. Both down 11% and 10%, respectively, from 2016: https://t.co/Zn9BFHHQUu pic.twitter.com/f7RTUqqnE5
— Pew Research Journalism (@pewjournalism) June 13, 2018
The city that never sleeps finds that it’s running out of reporters to report
Lack of diversity in newsrooms
Incredible to see Alexandra Ocasio Cortez being called a “media scold” and Trump-like for simply pointing out a lack of black representation at a major news outlet.
Just shows that so many are more invested in preserving the status quo than including black voices in media.
— Karen Attiah (@KarenAttiah) January 13, 2019
Pew Research – November 2018 – Newsroom Employees Are Less Diverse Than U.S. Workers Overall https://t.co/f8IAKlfZQM
— I See Karma 1619 – 2019 🖤 (@see_karma) January 13, 2019
For @farai's report racial and gender diversity in U.S. newsrooms, none of the TV news networks, including CBS News, were willing to provide statistics. Alt-text: graphs on racial/gender of 2016 political reporting teams by newsroom, and of all editorial staff (when available). pic.twitter.com/ELkyx8AlHf
— Eileen Clancy (@clancynewyork) January 13, 2019
Seeing conversation abt diversity in political reporting
Remember the problem is structural. Outlets must be better and finding/developing black talent, but industry must rethink rules that have long catered to white and wealthy: unpaid internship track, "objectivity," etc
— Steadman™ (@AsteadWesley) January 13, 2019
So this is how y’all plan on covering a democratic primary that in large part will be determined by black women, comes through S.C., and has the most AA candidates running for POTUS in history?
Someone signed off on this. Smh. Diversity matters. https://t.co/ahEoKCEYTx
— Bakari Sellers (@Bakari_Sellers) January 13, 2019
Seems that I should re-up this: https://t.co/hRbmzoqei9@CBSNews #diversity
— jelani cobb (@jelani9) January 13, 2019
Important read from @joannelipman, and something I think about a lot. –>
"The industry’s overwhelmingly male leadership has repercussions well beyond the newsroom." https://t.co/2uwHS3eoqI via @usatoday
— Michelle Ye Hee Lee (@myhlee) January 11, 2019
Convinced that every time some journalist tweets/writes a bad take on race, gender or some other diversity topic that draws significant criticism, their DMs are filled with praise from like-minded people. And that significantly shapes how seriously they process the criticism. 😕
— Eugene Scott (@Eugene_Scott) January 13, 2019
Dear @CBSNews, I am encouraged by the diversity you DID include. But when it comes time to discuss the inevitable role that race and racism will play in the election, who will you turn to for a perspective with nuanced & personal understanding of the African American experience? https://t.co/yqViF535oY
— kerry washington (@kerrywashington) January 13, 2019
You know who doesn’t care about diversity in press corps? People who never have to worry they won’t be reflected, heard or valued.
— G O L D I E. (@goldietaylor) January 13, 2019
The White House looked into attacking Iran
John Bolton, who may be insane, is a threat to national security. The fact that Mike Pompeo, who made the ridiculous “swagger” video, goes along with him shows how the risks are magnified when frivolous amateurs run things. https://t.co/z5vzoadkp7
— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) January 13, 2019
Breaking: Mike Pompeo tells Al-Arabiya, “We are ready to confront Iran.” pic.twitter.com/b45OUmZ1Pp
— Zev Shalev (@ZevShalev) January 13, 2019
The White House's National Security Council asked the Pentagon last year for plans for launching a military attack against Iran, the Wall Street Journal reports https://t.co/RuuXthjoxN pic.twitter.com/Uy24463ah1
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) January 13, 2019
Amazingly, this important story has gotten lost today. https://t.co/SLCDtZSdio
— Blake Hounshell (@blakehounshell) January 13, 2019
Trump is hiding documentation of his meetings with Putin. Why?
Trump is not following the usual protocols for documenting meetings and calls with foreign leaders. What is he hiding? Hopefully, House Democrats can get to the bottom of this. Republicans have just covered up for Trump since they are afraid of his cult.
In their first face to face meeting, Putin denied that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election. “I believe you,” trump said. https://t.co/aqj2Tmgbw3
— Greg Miller (@gregpmiller) January 13, 2019
Last year, we sought to obtain the interpreter’s notes or testimony, from the private meeting between Trump and Putin. The Republicans on our committee voted us down. Will they join us now? Shouldn’t we find out whether our president is really putting “America first?” https://t.co/hzgfTRl653
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) January 13, 2019
Destruction of evidence is consciousness of guilt. At this point please show me evidence that @realDonaldTrump is not working for Russia. https://t.co/t3DOGmNVv8
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) January 13, 2019
"Are you okay with the fact that the Kremlin knows more about these meetings than US intelligence and the national security community?" https://t.co/ANqvIVOlW7
— David Frum (@davidfrum) January 13, 2019
Durbin raises concerns about Trump-Putin relationship: "Why is this President Trump’s best buddy?" https://t.co/pq8vnuu0RB pic.twitter.com/l7IBghvzM9
— The Hill (@thehill) January 13, 2019
Republicans just cover up for Trump. It’s disgraceful.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy does not say whether he is concerned about report that President Trump has concealed details about his conversations with Vladimir Putin. He says it's part of Trump's strategy to "create a personal relationship" with world leaders pic.twitter.com/hHQ4o0aevB
— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 13, 2019
GOP Sen. Ron Johnson: Trump reportedly concealing Putin meeting info is just part of his "unorthodox" presidency https://t.co/etDZbxIiP4 pic.twitter.com/9kaF1L1l0k
— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 13, 2019
Trump reportedly went to “extraordinary lengths” to hide details of Putin talks from his own officials. https://t.co/uxlRSuECIU
— Slate (@Slate) January 13, 2019
I keep coming back to this. I have some memory about an article on Putin's tradecraft as RUS president; no cell phones, no notes, etc.
I wonder if Putin said to Trump in their first meeting to make sure the translator doesn't keep notes. https://t.co/JCCebzuR5X
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) January 13, 2019
I speak from experience: the biggest challenge as a spy is securely talking to your assets. I suspect that President Trump received directions by Putin how to speak securely and specific taskings. This, I believe, is when our President became an asset of the Russian government. https://t.co/NZIDjXCVQY
— Naveed Jamali (@NaveedAJamali) January 13, 2019
Great summary of the field day Pooty is having a result of our government chaos and compromised POTUS by @sam_vinograd https://t.co/qL9oc2mYou
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) January 13, 2019
Trump didn’t say “No” when asked if he worked for Russia
He’s attacked the New York Times. He’s attacked Comey and McCabe. He has not denied he worked for Russia. How hard is it to say “No” if that is the truth?
It just makes it more obvious that he is working for Putin’s interests instead of ours. We just don’t know why yet.
Here are the 358 words Donald Trump said when asked if he works for Putin. (None of them were ‘no.’) https://t.co/71aWfAM4Ho pic.twitter.com/zrmdazv1VD
— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) January 13, 2019
“So, I’m going to ask you: Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?” Pirro asked Trump on Fox last night.
Trump’s best answer would have been “no.” Instead, he bobbed, weaved and never answered the question directly. 🤔 https://t.co/rAIF55HtK3
— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) January 13, 2019
Why not just say “no?” https://t.co/rfwcP56gBm
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 13, 2019
America in 2019: The president, after spending the day tweeting alone in the White House, phones into a supporter’s Saturday night TV show and declines to say whether he is working on Russia’s behalf.
— Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) January 13, 2019
Jeanine Pirro (sarcastically): “Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?”
Trump (not denying the charge): “I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked.” https://t.co/39L0ur5sEd
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) January 13, 2019
Could have said ‘no’ https://t.co/WawxTjG2sW
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 13, 2019
Trump shouted into the phone, refused to directly say whether he’s a Russian asset, claimed he “hasn’t left the White House in months” (he has tons of times, including going to *Iraq* recently), and had another unhinged Twitter meltdown today. He’s unwell. That’s dangerous.
— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) January 13, 2019
Trump didn’t say “no.” https://t.co/MsFRAP9p6M
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 13, 2019
Trump didn’t say no when asked on Fox if he was a Russian asset. Now, every witness to every conversation between Trump & Putin needs to be placed under oath for public testimony on the Hill so the American people can get the answers about this President that they deserve. https://t.co/CttGHOPa8h
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) January 13, 2019
Sad! 