Opposing party cabinet members?

[_DarkHelmet]

This thread reveals all anyone needs to know about Trump supporters.

[_Gunnar]

And ajax probably still doesn't understand how badly he has humiliated himself by starting this thread.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

And ajax probably still doesn't understand how badly he has humiliated himself by starting this thread.

I hope he doesn’t feel humiliated. I don’t think he should. I think he asked a sincere question that revealed something of himself. I hope he thinks something like “these guys don’t see politics as a zero-sum all out war. I hope he looks at the wiki entry and thinks “presidents have had political appointees from the other party for decades.” And I hope he is curious enough to wonder “why do I think about politics the way I do?”

Ajax, I’m gonna ask a favor. Please read this article. It’s ancient history. Well, 1964. https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the ... -politics/

When you see the word “communist,” I’d like you to do two things. First, replace it with “Jew,” and think about Smokey’s posts here and that period of your life when you posted on Stormfront. Second, replace it with “liberal,” and ask yourself why you think about liberals the way you do.

Then I’d be interested in hearing what you think.

[_EAllusion]

Ajax exists in an alt-media universe wherein people with integrity reporting the President's misconduct is actually part of a conspiracy of rogues who are trying to undermine the president with lies and misdirection because that's what anyone who isn't a loyal Trumpist does. What he's asking is why on earth you'd allow these miscreants in your administation.

You wouldn't, but that's not what's happening. What's happening is that the President is profoundly corrupt and some people in the admin who aren't fully loyal to Trump are reporting pieces of it. The reason you want people who aren't party loyalists in every position in the civil service is that you want people who are good at the tasks assigned to them and that crosses partisan boundaries. Further, you want people will put integrity above loyalty not only because this insulates against corruption, but because a culture that allows rational dissent produces the best outcomes.

Anyway, Ajax believes something like that the only legitimate holders of power are "real Americans" where that means something close to the Nazi equivalent of the volk. Trump is their representative, and the only valid exercise of power is that which advances his interests as it advances their interests.

A wiki list ain't changing that.

[_ajax18]

The reason you want people who aren't party loyalists in every position in the civil service is that you want people who are good at the tasks assigned to them and that crosses partisan boundaries.

So why did BHO fire and replace people appointed to the same positions by GWB?

[_huckelberry]

The reason you want people who aren't party loyalists in every position in the civil service is that you want people who are good at the tasks assigned to them and that crosses partisan boundaries.

So why did BHO fire and replace people appointed to the same positions by GWB?

All presidents do including Trump. Sometimes for some positions that could be delayed or skipped. But the point here is that Marie Yovanovitch was not a cabinet member.

[_EAllusion]

So why did BHO fire and replace people appointed to the same positions by GWB?

You haven't really specified what you are talking about yet because you seem to have confused ambassadors with cabinet level positions even though the role and scope of each position is quite different.

Ambassador appointments are notorious for being one of the remnants of the spoils system where important supporters/donors get vanity positions. Obama was better than recent history in this regard, but still subject to it. To the extent he participated in it, that's bad. Even when donors get those positions, you hope that they have relatively competent state dept. people underneath them successfully advancing US interests.

The short answer to your question is that he didn't sweep GWB's civil service clean. Yovanovitch herself was twice appointed as an ambassador by GWB.

There are reasons why you want partisan appointments within executive administrations in order to carry out leadership goals. We need to distinguish between a question that tries to differentiate between when you want partisan appointments and not and why you don't want the entire civil service to be party loyalists or, worse, loyalists to the President.

[_subgenius]

... successfully advancing US interests.

...

apart from your clumsy apologetics for your beloved Obama ..note that "US interests" are , by design, subject to change every 2, 4, or 6 years. So, for you to assert that a Bush appointee necessarily has the same "interest" as Obama is evaluated by Obama...by design.
Clearing out ambassadors every administration is not unreasonable and is more likely the better guiding principle.

[_EAllusion]

... successfully advancing US interests.

...

apart from your clumsy apologetics for your beloved Obama ..note that "US interests" are , by design, subject to change every 2, 4, or 6 years. So, for you to assert that a Bush appointee necessarily has the same "interest" as Obama is evaluated by Obama...by design.
Clearing out ambassadors every administration is not unreasonable and is more likely the better guiding principle.

US diplomatic interests don't drastically change every 2,4, or 6 years such that you continuously need new people to carry them out. If they did, we'd be completely unreliable in world affairs. Trump's, ahem, backers seem to want this, but some continuity is good.