Ok this isn't a rhetorical question. Help me understand why a president would not want to fire everyone in the cabinet from the opposing political party? Why was this woman asked to stay on through 2020 in the first place? They knew she was from the opposition party. They should have known she could get close enough to the president to launch an attack and attempt to undo the results of the election that the hard left views as a political catastrophe.
Former United States ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testified Friday about her dismay upon being fired by President Donald Trump, but it’s actually quite common for presidents to do so after taking office.
The State Department issued a December 2008 notice to Bush-appointed ambassadors to submit their resignations, effective when President Barack Obama took office in 2009, according to the Washington Post.
“It’s a normal procedure for ambassadors, career and non-career, to submit their resignations. And what happens is that all of them do,” the official said at the time. Typically, some career ambassadors are later allowed to stay in place on a case by case basis until they are replaced.
Trump also issued a notice asking all Obama-appointed ambassadors to submit their resignations when he prepared to take office, which created controversy at the time, as it appeared that he would not allow extensions.
Yovanovitch was first appointed by Obama in 2016 and confirmed by the Senate. She was asked by the Trump-run State Department to stay on as an ambassador to Ukraine through 2020, but she was fired in May 2019.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Yovanovitch was first appointed by Obama in 2016 and confirmed by the Senate. She was asked by the Trump-run State Department to stay on as an ambassador to Ukraine through 2020, but she was fired in May 2019.
The Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016 when they confirmed her.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
An ambassador is well below the cabinet level. It seems like you are asking why you wouldn't want party loyalists in the entire civil service. Is that what you are asking?
Few things seem more unreasonable or counterproductive to me than arbitrarily firing seasoned and highly qualified ambassadors and diplomatic service personnel, who have dedicated their careers to learning the languages and cultures of the countries to which they are assigned, only to replace them with political cronies and donors who have no prior knowledge nor experience of the languages or customs of the countries to which they seek appointment, nor any interest in learning about them.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
EAllusion wrote:An ambassador is well below the cabinet level. It seems like you are asking why you wouldn't want party loyalists in the entire civil service. Is that what you are asking?
Why would you allow anyone from the opposing party close enough to the president to lay traps and obstruct his agenda which they so vehemently disagree with? Why would you allow anyone from the deep state in the Republican party close enough to trap the President?
I guess I just don't understand why they weren't fired and replaced before the president was sworn in. What did he expect them to do, help him further his agenda?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
EAllusion wrote:An ambassador is well below the cabinet level. It seems like you are asking why you wouldn't want party loyalists in the entire civil service. Is that what you are asking?
Why would you allow anyone from the opposing party close enough to the president to lay traps like this for him like this? Why would you allow anyone from the deep state in the Republican party close enough to trap the President?
What trap are you referring to? The trap of reporting his misconduct when called on Congress to do so? Are you asking why you'd want anyone who would put integrity over personal loyalty in those positions?
Because, Ajax, you’re confusing what you would do in her place with what normal people do. Just because you would put party before country doesn’t mean that’s what most people would do. This is exactly what I mean about the right looking it’s soul. This woman is a patriot who puts country first. Nobody laid a Trap for Trump. He’s been corrupt from the beginning. He doesn’t give a crap about the country — just himself.
You’ve lost your way, my friend. You’ve forgotten what it means to be a citizen. Sold your patriotism for a bowl full of cheap Trump souvenirs.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
ajax18 wrote:What did he expect them to do, help him further his agenda?
ajax, since you took the time to create this thread, I'm assuming that you're willing to explore questions raised from it. So I have a couple for you:
1. Why would your first or most important qualifying question asked to determine the skill or fitness of a candidate for an administrative or international diplomatic position be, "Who did you vote for, for President?"
2. Which elements within Trump's 'agenda' would not be able to be promoted by a dedicated and competent civil servant who voted for either the Republican or Democratic candidate?
ajax18 wrote:Help me understand why a president would not want to fire everyone in the cabinet from the opposing political party?
I imagine that for any President wishing to engage in clandestine criminal activities, getting rid of anyone who might blow the whistle on them is particularly important.
Make them walk the plank before they rat on you. Don't want no squeals blabbing that you're not in the olive oil business.
ajax18 wrote:Help me understand why a president would not want to fire everyone in the cabinet from the opposing political party?
I imagine that for any President wishing to engage in clandestine criminal activities, getting rid of anyone who might blow the whistle on them is particularly important.
Make them walk the plank before they rat on you. Don't want no squeals blabbing that you're not in the olive oil business.
Are you saying Trump's NOT in the olive oil business? Is there a witness protection program for penguins?
Hint: the best person for the job may not be a member of your tribe.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951