Going to be a big door swinging in Washington DC

[Damaged Eagle]

This blog explains it best...and reasonably explores it. What makes the Trump team's "pink slipping" so much more callous is the up front "no exceptions" statement.

Foreign Service Tradition: Political Ambassadors Have To Be Out By January 20

How about this one: Going into work and there is a sign on the gate "We are permanently closed. Pick up your paycheck at this and this location."
It happened.

Yes. It HAS happened. Are you saying that is right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[deltex1]

Russia....Schumer as clown...now this? I am horrified.......

 

[Coyote]

Not in this case. I know her from another board. She put up a point and defended it as best she could until it was obvious it wasn't correct and then said so. I have no problem with that. There are plenty of other's that wouldn't do the same in any circumstance. Let it go man. She deserves some kudos for coming around. As a bonus our point won right? No need to be an asshole about it when she conceded. Show a little class back and just accept the concession.

She's calling the source that was correct a fake news source but will not call the source pushing DNC propaganda fake news. It's because we are rightards to her as she stated.

If you dislike the term "rightard" then don't use the term "libtard". You do understand that don't you?

I called the Breitbart article claiming Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved "fake news". Ok, I'll make a correction here - it's not "fake news" (though I did use quotes when I used to term since I was being sarcastic) - but it's like the NYT article - it's heavily slanted and biased. It's IMPLYING that Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved and worse than that of other administrations. Just like the NYT article IMPLIED that Trumps firing of ambassadors was worse than that of other administrations.

The other one I referred to as "fake news" was post 138, and I provided a source showing that it was, at the very least a gross exageration.

So which one are you talking about?

Please post where I've used "libtard."

Both of the ones you called fake news are heavily slanted or gross exaggerations in your opinion so you call them fake news. The NYT and every other MSM outlet that ran with this were heavily slanted and gross exaggerations, even an out and out lie with "unprecedented," but not fake news in your expressed opinion.

That is my point. Even when it is proven to you, you minimize the left's fake news and double down that RW sources are fake news.

Ok. Point taken.

Are you any different when it comes to the left? You seem to minimize the right's fake news and slanted stories while attacking the MSM.

I don't think I've ever called you a rightard.

I defend the left and call out the right. Every "family values" conservative who cheated got slammed by me. I dont slam the left for the same because they dont generally run on sanctity of marriage or family values. Ive called Trump a blowhard and a buffoon. Before the "extremely careless with national security" bit, I expressed I could vote for the Clintons. I defended Obama as a solid family man, good husband, good father, and of course his MIL should live in the WH and travel with her family. I've recommended PP for low income women to obtain birth control and papsmears (the only experience I've had with them, and they were positive experiences).

I dont generally agree politically with the left, so dont much defend their politics. I do defend them as human beings though and freely admit most of them are good people. I am harder on the right, politically, because when one of mine turns out to be a turd, I want him gone gone gone so as not to stink up my house.

I've not found much to defend in the MSM for a long time but I point out both LW propaganda and RW propaganda. I prefer CBC and BBC often. They have a LW filter but are much more honest IMO. I'm married to a Canadian and my FIL is a Brit. I would not really call it a bias, though, more ... a culture? filter? worldview? It's not propaganda meant to steer our opinion as far as I can tell. PBS isn't bad here, but I don't know about other regions. LPBS is what I get.

Apologies if rightard was not meant to apply to the right, in general. That is how I perceived it.

When I've used "rightard" it's usually on response to libtard which gets irritating. I don't see MSM as a single category because it varies in accuracy and bias, not just in terms of ideology but in a currency. Some outlets do better jobs then others at covering certain topics. In my opinion, most still do a better job then some of the "fake news" sites on the right and the left because those have zero accountability and play on an emotional level. I have to admit, I am now much more skeptical of NYT from here on. I have always liked NPR because they are one of the few agencies that still do in depth reporting on issues. Throughout the election they covered all sides, talked with voters around the country in a respectful engaging manner, putting down no one. I learned more about people on both sides then any where else, as people - not ignorant, not America hating, etc. People with real concerns, fears, and hopes. That's a refreshing change from the demonizing that seems the norm.

 

[defcon4]

When I've used "rightard" it's usually on response to libtard which gets irritating. I don't see MSM as a single category because it varies in accuracy and bias, not just in terms of ideology but in a currency. Some outlets do better jobs then others at covering certain topics. In my opinion, most still do a better job then some of the "fake news" sites on the right and the left because those have zero accountability and play on an emotional level. I have to admit, I am now much more skeptical of NYT from here on. I have always liked NPR because they are one of the few agencies that still do in depth reporting on issues. Throughout the election they covered all sides, talked with voters around the country in a respectful engaging manner, putting down no one. I learned more about people on both sides then any where else, as people - not ignorant, not America hating, etc. People with real concerns, fears, and hopes. That's a refreshing change from the demonizing that seems the norm.

Libtard...libtard...libtard....

 

[Coyote]

I don't agree with your analysis of MSM (and that includes Fox)- I find trustworthyness varies according to the agency and the topics they write about. Broadbrushing them is like broad brushing all liberals as libtards or all conservatives as conservatards. (and, frankly, I get sick of being termed "libtard"). The media is only as good as the readers willingness to apply critical thinking - which I didn't in this OP. Mea Culpa. The NYT article wasn't WRONG in the sense that every statement was factual- it wasn't "fake news" - nothing was made up. But it was presented in such a way as to imply this was something new and unprecedented, and that former administrations had acted differently so it was deliberately being deceptive.

And the 2 pages of MSM that did the same?

What 2 pages of "MSM"? MSM is a wide variety of different media sources with differing levels of accuracy and differing bias' - so what are you talking about with this nefarious "MSM"?

Propaganda is not fake news?

News can be fake, biased, slanted, inaccurate and those can all mean different things.
Fake news is fake - mostly made up. One example would be the claim that "Trump Made a Victory Tour in Red Square" or "Pizzagate".

Biased and slanted news is just that - it's "accurate" in so far as the facts check out, but it's formated in such a way as to imply something else or it leaves out information and context that provides the whole picture. It's not fake news.

News can also just be wrong - for example the election predictions (and predictions are just that, predictions) - it's not not necessarily deliberate slanting or bias.

Right wing propaganda is fake news and left wing propaganda isn't?

Anything can be fake news.

The story was a lie. It is NOT unprecedented. It is the norm. They made up a story and the MSM pushed it.

The facts presented in the story weren't lies - the conclusions and the implications were dishonest and heavily slanted.

Trump DID say - NO EXCEPTIONS
Precedent of previous administrations was that the incoming administration could be petitioned for exceptions and they might or might not be granted.
The article left out a lot of context - for example, that what Trump did was largely normal and in line with other administrations who had granted exceptions (but not that many). The NYT slanted the story to imply that Trump was being far crueler than preceding administrations.

Many of those same outlets published when Obama did the same but with no negative connotations. The whole story is that Trump is hurting children and families in this unprecedented spiteful move. That is FAKE NEWS and it has been ongoing for a long time. Of course we don't trust them. You shouldn't either, much less show such disdain for people who rightly call the MSM heavily left leaning.

I don't trust your rightwing-leaning MSM outlets either with all the negative, fake and dishonest reporting they've done on Obama. But it's not necessarily "fake news".

did obama grant grace periods to bush ambassadors - Google Search

After 2 pages with no mention of what happened to Bush's ambassadors, I had to abandon Google for another engine. What shows up is Trump's unprescedented (outright lie) action.

NYT, Politico and CNN on page 1 of the search. I call propaganda fake news no matter the side.

I think there is a difference between fake news and biased news - no matter the side. Fake news is totally fake. Obama did grant grace periods to some ambassadors, UK ambassador Tuttle for example.

The merge screwed up my resoonse. Propaganda is fake news even if there is a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere. It is designed to mislead the public, which is the opposite of what news is. It is dangerous to the country. It is not news if it has an agenda and uses dishonesty to push that agenda. If it is not news and calls itself news, it is fake news. I usually just call it propaganda. Its just that "fake news" was already being used here.

My only issue with that is we have to guess at intent. Fake news, to me is like conspiracy theory, either fabricated or false links made between facts. Either way, the NYT created a false conclusion by leaving out info. I think it just means I have to be critical and fact check before assuming accuracy and getting good outraged.

 

[Tresha91203]

Coyote

My quote function just turned against me so can't reply.

When I commuted, I listened to NPR and liked them. I have not listened in over a year so didn't catch their election coverage and can't comment on it other than I have no reason to suspect they have changed.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

My quote function just turned against me so can't reply.

When I commuted, I listened to NPR and liked them. I have not listened in over a year so didn't catch their election coverage and can't comment on it other than I have no reason to suspect they have changed.

That's why I listen to them, I drive a lot

 

[Tresha91203]

And the 2 pages of MSM that did the same?

What 2 pages of "MSM"? MSM is a wide variety of different media sources with differing levels of accuracy and differing bias' - so what are you talking about with this nefarious "MSM"?

Propaganda is not fake news?

News can be fake, biased, slanted, inaccurate and those can all mean different things.
Fake news is fake - mostly made up. One example would be the claim that "Trump Made a Victory Tour in Red Square" or "Pizzagate".

Biased and slanted news is just that - it's "accurate" in so far as the facts check out, but it's formated in such a way as to imply something else or it leaves out information and context that provides the whole picture. It's not fake news.

News can also just be wrong - for example the election predictions (and predictions are just that, predictions) - it's not not necessarily deliberate slanting or bias.

Right wing propaganda is fake news and left wing propaganda isn't?

Anything can be fake news.

The story was a lie. It is NOT unprecedented. It is the norm. They made up a story and the MSM pushed it.

The facts presented in the story weren't lies - the conclusions and the implications were dishonest and heavily slanted.

Trump DID say - NO EXCEPTIONS
Precedent of previous administrations was that the incoming administration could be petitioned for exceptions and they might or might not be granted.
The article left out a lot of context - for example, that what Trump did was largely normal and in line with other administrations who had granted exceptions (but not that many). The NYT slanted the story to imply that Trump was being far crueler than preceding administrations.

Many of those same outlets published when Obama did the same but with no negative connotations. The whole story is that Trump is hurting children and families in this unprecedented spiteful move. That is FAKE NEWS and it has been ongoing for a long time. Of course we don't trust them. You shouldn't either, much less show such disdain for people who rightly call the MSM heavily left leaning.

I don't trust your rightwing-leaning MSM outlets either with all the negative, fake and dishonest reporting they've done on Obama. But it's not necessarily "fake news".

did obama grant grace periods to bush ambassadors - Google Search

After 2 pages with no mention of what happened to Bush's ambassadors, I had to abandon Google for another engine. What shows up is Trump's unprescedented (outright lie) action.

NYT, Politico and CNN on page 1 of the search. I call propaganda fake news no matter the side.

I think there is a difference between fake news and biased news - no matter the side. Fake news is totally fake. Obama did grant grace periods to some ambassadors, UK ambassador Tuttle for example.

The merge screwed up my resoonse. Propaganda is fake news even if there is a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere. It is designed to mislead the public, which is the opposite of what news is. It is dangerous to the country. It is not news if it has an agenda and uses dishonesty to push that agenda. If it is not news and calls itself news, it is fake news. I usually just call it propaganda. Its just that "fake news" was already being used here.

My only issue with that is we have to guess at intent. Fake news, to me is like conspiracy theory, either fabricated or false links made between facts. Either way, the NYT created a false conclusion by leaving out info. I think it just means I have to be critical and fact check before assuming accuracy and getting good outraged.

Much of Pravda has truth in it. It is still take news IMO. When "news" intentionally misrepresents fact to steer public opinion, it is not news. News is information. False information is false news.

 

[Tilly]

Guests of Matthew Barzun - US Ambassador to London, at their celebratory election party in the Embassy early hours of Nov 9th :

Election party in London turns into a wake: US ambassador sees his 'celebration' wrecked by Trump win - and now he's set to lose his job too | Daily Mail Online

 

[Flopper]

She's calling the source that was correct a fake news source but will not call the source pushing DNC propaganda fake news. It's because we are rightards to her as she stated.

If you dislike the term "rightard" then don't use the term "libtard". You do understand that don't you?

I called the Breitbart article claiming Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved "fake news". Ok, I'll make a correction here - it's not "fake news" (though I did use quotes when I used to term since I was being sarcastic) - but it's like the NYT article - it's heavily slanted and biased. It's IMPLYING that Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved and worse than that of other administrations. Just like the NYT article IMPLIED that Trumps firing of ambassadors was worse than that of other administrations.

The other one I referred to as "fake news" was post 138, and I provided a source showing that it was, at the very least a gross exageration.

So which one are you talking about?

Please post where I've used "libtard."

Both of the ones you called fake news are heavily slanted or gross exaggerations in your opinion so you call them fake news. The NYT and every other MSM outlet that ran with this were heavily slanted and gross exaggerations, even an out and out lie with "unprecedented," but not fake news in your expressed opinion.

That is my point. Even when it is proven to you, you minimize the left's fake news and double down that RW sources are fake news.

Ok. Point taken.

Are you any different when it comes to the left? You seem to minimize the right's fake news and slanted stories while attacking the MSM.

I don't think I've ever called you a rightard.

I defend the left and call out the right. Every "family values" conservative who cheated got slammed by me. I dont slam the left for the same because they dont generally run on sanctity of marriage or family values. Ive called Trump a blowhard and a buffoon. Before the "extremely careless with national security" bit, I expressed I could vote for the Clintons. I defended Obama as a solid family man, good husband, good father, and of course his MIL should live in the WH and travel with her family. I've recommended PP for low income women to obtain birth control and papsmears (the only experience I've had with them, and they were positive experiences).

I dont generally agree politically with the left, so dont much defend their politics. I do defend them as human beings though and freely admit most of them are good people. I am harder on the right, politically, because when one of mine turns out to be a turd, I want him gone gone gone so as not to stink up my house.

I've not found much to defend in the MSM for a long time but I point out both LW propaganda and RW propaganda. I prefer CBC and BBC often. They have a LW filter but are much more honest IMO. I'm married to a Canadian and my FIL is a Brit. I would not really call it a bias, though, more ... a culture? filter? worldview? It's not propaganda meant to steer our opinion as far as I can tell. PBS isn't bad here, but I don't know about other regions. LPBS is what I get.

Apologies if rightard was not meant to apply to the right, in general. That is how I perceived it.

When I've used "rightard" it's usually on response to libtard which gets irritating. I don't see MSM as a single category because it varies in accuracy and bias, not just in terms of ideology but in a currency. Some outlets do better jobs then others at covering certain topics. In my opinion, most still do a better job then some of the "fake news" sites on the right and the left because those have zero accountability and play on an emotional level. I have to admit, I am now much more skeptical of NYT from here on. I have always liked NPR because they are one of the few agencies that still do in depth reporting on issues. Throughout the election they covered all sides, talked with voters around the country in a respectful engaging manner, putting down no one. I learned more about people on both sides then any where else, as people - not ignorant, not America hating, etc. People with real concerns, fears, and hopes. That's a refreshing change from the demonizing that seems the norm.

Real news is not very exciting. In fact it can be downright boring. Therefore, all media outlets embellish the news in various ways in order to catch the attention of the public. This has been going on a long time.

In the early days of radio and tv, the FCC required stations to devote about 10% of their airtime to public service. Most stations considered this a real blow feeling their audiences would desert them during these messages. They considered the news as being the best way of fulfilling the FCC requirement and still keeping their audience tuned in. No one ever really though audiences would like the news. It was something to do while you waited for the entertainment.

By the mid 20th century, a significant portion of audiences were drawn to commentators such as Edward R Murrow, Gabriel Heater, Walter Winchell, and Paul Harvey. These programs were isolated from the real news. They were a cross between entertainment and news. Networks executives did not fail to notice that these commentators were drawing significant audiences. Network executives, seeing this decided that news could be made entertaining and eventually develop enough of an audience to operate at a profit. Within a decade that is exactly what they did.

Over the years, news programs spent less time worrying about details and facts and more time on human interest. If a story was to get on the evening news it had to be entertaining. If had to have a message. By the end of the century, news programs were well on their way to becoming entertainment. Within ten years, cable news and broadcast news had merged commentary and news together in such a way that it was often difficult to tell where the news ended and commentary began.

What was once a medium to inform the public of news stories has become not just part of the stories but a force that actually creates the stories.

 

[HenryBHough]

OK, so under President Trump some political hacks get to join the ranks of the unemployed.

Had Hillary been elected they might have stayed on the job longer. At least until they got murdered while Her Thighness sat on the throne smirking.

Surely one or two of them understand they're better off?

 

[American_Jihad]

Not in this case. I know her from another board. She put up a point and defended it as best she could until it was obvious it wasn't correct and then said so. I have no problem with that. There are plenty of other's that wouldn't do the same in any circumstance. Let it go man. She deserves some kudos for coming around. As a bonus our point won right? No need to be an asshole about it when she conceded. Show a little class back and just accept the concession.

She's calling the source that was correct a fake news source but will not call the source pushing DNC propaganda fake news. It's because we are rightards to her as she stated.

If you dislike the term "rightard" then don't use the term "libtard". You do understand that don't you?

I called the Breitbart article claiming Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved "fake news". Ok, I'll make a correction here - it's not "fake news" (though I did use quotes when I used to term since I was being sarcastic) - but it's like the NYT article - it's heavily slanted and biased. It's IMPLYING that Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved and worse than that of other administrations. Just like the NYT article IMPLIED that Trumps firing of ambassadors was worse than that of other administrations.

The other one I referred to as "fake news" was post 138, and I provided a source showing that it was, at the very least a gross exageration.

So which one are you talking about?

Please post where I've used "libtard."

Both of the ones you called fake news are heavily slanted or gross exaggerations in your opinion so you call them fake news. The NYT and every other MSM outlet that ran with this were heavily slanted and gross exaggerations, even an out and out lie with "unprecedented," but not fake news in your expressed opinion.

That is my point. Even when it is proven to you, you minimize the left's fake news and double down that RW sources are fake news.

Ok. Point taken.

Are you any different when it comes to the left? You seem to minimize the right's fake news and slanted stories while attacking the MSM.

I don't think I've ever called you a rightard.

I defend the left and call out the right. Every "family values" conservative who cheated got slammed by me. I dont slam the left for the same because they dont generally run on sanctity of marriage or family values. Ive called Trump a blowhard and a buffoon. Before the "extremely careless with national security" bit, I expressed I could vote for the Clintons. I defended Obama as a solid family man, good husband, good father, and of course his MIL should live in the WH and travel with her family. I've recommended PP for low income women to obtain birth control and papsmears (the only experience I've had with them, and they were positive experiences).

I dont generally agree politically with the left, so dont much defend their politics. I do defend them as human beings though and freely admit most of them are good people. I am harder on the right, politically, because when one of mine turns out to be a turd, I want him gone gone gone so as not to stink up my house.

I've not found much to defend in the MSM for a long time but I point out both LW propaganda and RW propaganda. I prefer CBC and BBC often. They have a LW filter but are much more honest IMO. I'm married to a Canadian and my FIL is a Brit. I would not really call it a bias, though, more ... a culture? filter? worldview? It's not propaganda meant to steer our opinion as far as I can tell. PBS isn't bad here, but I don't know about other regions. LPBS is what I get.

Apologies if rightard was not meant to apply to the right, in general. That is how I perceived it.

Brits got there's, we got ours, canoduh will get there big swinging door in 2019, and the europeeons will get there's in the next 5 yrs...

 

[Cellblock2429]

You're fired, the door can't be big enough, good riddance...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

The New York Times
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS 3 hrs ago

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has taken a hard line against leaving any of President Obama’s political appointees in place as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20 with a mission of dismantling many of his predecessor’s signature foreign and domestic policy achievements. “Political” ambassadors, many of them major donors who are nominated by virtue of close ties with the president, almost always leave at the end of his term; ambassadors who are career diplomats often remain in their posts.

A senior Trump transition official said there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Mr. Obama’s overseas appointees leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal deliberations, said the ambassadors should not be surprised about being held to a hard end date.

...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

/---- Don't be surprised if democRATS use this as an excuse to Impeach Trump. They did the same thing to GWB and his judges. Liberals are evil.

 

[Cellblock2429]

OK, so under President Trump some political hacks get to join the ranks of the unemployed.

Had Hillary been elected they might have stayed on the job longer. At least until they got murdered while Her Thighness sat on the throne smirking.

Surely one or two of them understand they're better off?

/---- "Her Thighness" - I love it. Can I steal that line?

 

[Tresha91203]

She's calling the source that was correct a fake news source but will not call the source pushing DNC propaganda fake news. It's because we are rightards to her as she stated.

If you dislike the term "rightard" then don't use the term "libtard". You do understand that don't you?

I called the Breitbart article claiming Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved "fake news". Ok, I'll make a correction here - it's not "fake news" (though I did use quotes when I used to term since I was being sarcastic) - but it's like the NYT article - it's heavily slanted and biased. It's IMPLYING that Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved and worse than that of other administrations. Just like the NYT article IMPLIED that Trumps firing of ambassadors was worse than that of other administrations.

The other one I referred to as "fake news" was post 138, and I provided a source showing that it was, at the very least a gross exageration.

So which one are you talking about?

Please post where I've used "libtard."

Both of the ones you called fake news are heavily slanted or gross exaggerations in your opinion so you call them fake news. The NYT and every other MSM outlet that ran with this were heavily slanted and gross exaggerations, even an out and out lie with "unprecedented," but not fake news in your expressed opinion.

That is my point. Even when it is proven to you, you minimize the left's fake news and double down that RW sources are fake news.

Ok. Point taken.

Are you any different when it comes to the left? You seem to minimize the right's fake news and slanted stories while attacking the MSM.

I don't think I've ever called you a rightard.

I defend the left and call out the right. Every "family values" conservative who cheated got slammed by me. I dont slam the left for the same because they dont generally run on sanctity of marriage or family values. Ive called Trump a blowhard and a buffoon. Before the "extremely careless with national security" bit, I expressed I could vote for the Clintons. I defended Obama as a solid family man, good husband, good father, and of course his MIL should live in the WH and travel with her family. I've recommended PP for low income women to obtain birth control and papsmears (the only experience I've had with them, and they were positive experiences).

I dont generally agree politically with the left, so dont much defend their politics. I do defend them as human beings though and freely admit most of them are good people. I am harder on the right, politically, because when one of mine turns out to be a turd, I want him gone gone gone so as not to stink up my house.

I've not found much to defend in the MSM for a long time but I point out both LW propaganda and RW propaganda. I prefer CBC and BBC often. They have a LW filter but are much more honest IMO. I'm married to a Canadian and my FIL is a Brit. I would not really call it a bias, though, more ... a culture? filter? worldview? It's not propaganda meant to steer our opinion as far as I can tell. PBS isn't bad here, but I don't know about other regions. LPBS is what I get.

Apologies if rightard was not meant to apply to the right, in general. That is how I perceived it.

Brits got there's, we got ours, canoduh will get there big swinging door in 2019, and the europeeons will get there's in the next 5 yrs...

It is a global trend to be sure. I'm not so sure the Canadians are ready to swing right. The Brits and Americans are more than ready, so the pendulum swings. You might be right about Canada, but I think it will be in one of the 2020's elections.

 

[Tilly]

I watched an interview with Barzun on either BBC or Sky, within days of Trumps epic win. For someone who graduated from ? Harvard, he seemed to be rather slow-witted and appears to have a very limited vocabulary. However, he was under no illusion that he'd be vacating the premises ASAP, in that it is 'normal' to do so when your team failed to get elected and secure your post, and he was quite pragmatic about it.
All he really wanted to talk about was his huge collection of crap vinyl music . Let's hope Trump does better with these appointments.

 

[Flopper]

You're fired, the door can't be big enough, good riddance...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

The New York Times
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS 3 hrs ago

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has taken a hard line against leaving any of President Obama’s political appointees in place as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20 with a mission of dismantling many of his predecessor’s signature foreign and domestic policy achievements. “Political” ambassadors, many of them major donors who are nominated by virtue of close ties with the president, almost always leave at the end of his term; ambassadors who are career diplomats often remain in their posts.

A senior Trump transition official said there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Mr. Obama’s overseas appointees leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal deliberations, said the ambassadors should not be surprised about being held to a hard end date.

...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

/---- Don't be surprised if democRATS use this as an excuse to Impeach Trump. They did the same thing to GWB and his judges. Liberals are evil.

Since impeachment requires a majority vote in the House to bring charges, which democrats don't have and a 2/3 vote in Senate which democrats don't have, exactly how are they going to impeach Trump.

If Trump screws up, his own party in congress will impeach him. They didn't want him elected because he didn't have either the experience or temperament and Trump has done nothing to convince them otherwise.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Clinton and Obama are the only modern examples of those with school age children

If you consider the Carter presidency part of the modern pantheon of U.S. Presidents, his daughter too was school age during his Presidency. Indeed, there was a lot of "to do" about what school she'd attend. (He sent her first to D.C. public schools and later to Holton Arms.)

 

[Claudette]

What kind of idiot would leave embassies empty for months on end when the world is in a state of unrest?

It looks to me like Trump's trying to make it easier for diplomatic relations to fail in critical areas.

That stupid orange fuck could start WW3.

Too funny, most ambassadorships are ceremonial patronage positions given to wealthy know nothings that do nothing more than attend rubber chicken dinners and pretend to be important. Embassies are ran by professionals that keep them going day to day.

Yup and every elected POTUS has done the very same thing.

 

[Flopper]

You're fired, the door can't be big enough, good riddance...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

The New York Times
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS 3 hrs ago

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has taken a hard line against leaving any of President Obama’s political appointees in place as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20 with a mission of dismantling many of his predecessor’s signature foreign and domestic policy achievements. “Political” ambassadors, many of them major donors who are nominated by virtue of close ties with the president, almost always leave at the end of his term; ambassadors who are career diplomats often remain in their posts.

A senior Trump transition official said there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Mr. Obama’s overseas appointees leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal deliberations, said the ambassadors should not be surprised about being held to a hard end date.

...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

Looks, like that big swinging door swings both direction. Trump may find it hits him in the ass as it did Flynn.