• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump tells Obama's Ambassadors to Leave By Inauguration Day

OMG. No WONDER we have a problem disseminating information in this country.
 
Grand Mal said:
Here's the story...

President-elect Donald Trump is not allowing for any diplomatic dawdling. His transition team has issued a directive that all ambassadors appointed by President Obama must leave their posts by Inauguration Day, a source confirmed Friday. While it is standard for politically appointed ambassadors to step aside at the end of a presidential term, past administrations have offered a grace period in certain cases. An individual with knowledge of the foreign service told FoxNews.com that Trump’s “unwillingness to consider individual cases or exigencies” appears to represent a break with protocol. "The directive] in itself is not that significant. But it is more unyielding than in the past,” he said.

However, Obama’s transition team sent out similar guidance -- eight years ago -- telling ambassadors appointed by President George W. Bush they had to leave their posts by Inauguration Day. The Washington Post reported in December 2008 that ambassadors would not be permitted to stay on and that “the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.

Did I reassemble it right?
It says this, "... unwillingness to consider individual cases or exigencies” appears to represent a break with protocol." about Trump and this..."the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees."
Sounds pretty even to me.

And my education ended in trade apprenticeship. I don't think those were liberals who taught me rigging theory or basic welding- I picked up liberalism on the street corners. Street corners in Canada are different from those in America.
Click to expand...

If Obama did it, why is it a story? How is it a 'break with protocol?' A non-slanted story would begin something like this: Following the example laid down by President Obamas transition team in 2008, President elect Trump issued a directive that all ambassadors leave their posts by election day.
 
Fletch said:
Post 14 had a link. Chances are there wasn't a big deal made of it by the press then, but now that Trump is doing it, they are outraged. And you don't know that Trump wont grant extensions either.
Click to expand...

That link specifically says Obama probably wouldn't retain Bush appointees beyond the exception noted ("Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration.") I imagine that was indeed the case--it's unlikely he kept many in their positions long-term.

But the distinction being drawn in this thread is between normal precedent to allow some ambassadors a little leeway on when they leave and Trump's apparent interest in throwing them all out by 1/20. To say Obama didn't allow any ambassadors' transitions to extend beyond 1/20 is plainly false.
 
BrewerBob said:
1/3 of Ambassadorships are political appointments. They are partisan. Often donars. The other 2/3 are career foreign service positions filled by people who worked their way up the Foreign Service chain of command. My guess is the letters were to the political appointees but I don't know.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right - happens the same way here in Canada. In most cases, the plum appointments, like Ambassador to France or England, etc., would go to party hacks and bagmen who've paved the way for the leader to get elected. The less desirable posts, like Pakistan as an example, would go to career Foreign Service professionals.
 
BrewerBob said:
I'm curious how the logistics of this works out now and before. Ambassadors can't depart Post until the State Department issues a travel authorization and allocates funds for the move. I am guessing it can only work if the current State Department cooperates with the President-Elect's wishes. It would be a dick move for Kerry to not allow it because as someone who has done a short-notice overseas move from an embassy I can attest that it sucks.
Click to expand...
I would presume... hope... that it only means they discontinue work on that day, not that they have to be standing on the sidewalk with packed bags and crates waiting for the movers.
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't get it. The report says Trump and Obama did the same thing. What's the slant?
On a side note, it seems odd to replace ambassadors with each new president. I'd have guessed that ambassadors were fairly apolitical, in a party politics sense.
Click to expand...


ambassadorships are political rewards.
 
Fletch said:
If Obama did it, why is it a story? How is it a 'break with protocol?' A non-slanted story would begin something like this: Following the example laid down by President Obamas transition team in 2008, President elect Trump issued a directive that all ambassadors leave their posts by election day.
Click to expand...

It's the same story the way you put it, just that Obama's name is mentioned before Trumps.
What I got from it was that Trump had made the same break that Obama did. Who knows, maybe now that two successive Presidents have handled it the same, a new protocol has been established and if the next president does it there won't be a story anymore.
I doubt anyone but a bunch of news junkies like us here cares about it anyway.
 
Grand Mal said:
It's the same story the way you put it, just that Obama's name is mentioned before Trumps.
What I got from it was that Trump had made the same break that Obama did. Who knows, maybe now that two successive Presidents have handled it the same, a new protocol has been established and if the next president does it there won't be a story anymore.
I doubt anyone but a bunch of news junkies like us here cares about it anyway.
Click to expand...

The point is, HOW you write a story is what determines whether it is objective coverage or a political slant. Liberals usually fail to see a liberal slant just as conservatives fail to see a conservative slant.
 
reinoe said:
There are two types of Ambassadors: career ambassadors and then political appointees. The political appointees basically get a four year (8 year if the prez is re-elected) vacation after making big contributions. The plumbest spots are in Australia , the Carribean and New Zealand for the fabulous weather, France and Germany and the Nordics for the old-world feel, and East asia to help cement business deals.

The great news is that Trump doesn't have any big donors he needs to pay off so he can focus on getting competent people the jobs.
Click to expand...
read this article and you may change your mind:
Meet Robert Mercer, the Mysterious Billionaire Benefactor of Breitbart
 
MaggieD said:
Read carefully.



And one paragraph later...



This is just one more example of the slanted news coverage we continue to get. And this is from FOX.
Click to expand...

Umm... Maggie, you just provided evidence that Fox News is biased in favor of Trump. They tried to equivocate the two when they are not necessarily equivalent.

"Incoming presidents of both parties have often made exceptions to allow ambassadors to wrap up personal affairs and important diplomatic business while their successors were in the confirmation process, which can take months. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Mr. Obama all granted extensions for a few politically appointed ambassadors."

"“When you have people out there whose only reason for being an ambassador is their political connection to the outgoing president of a different party, it’s pretty logical to say they should leave,” said Mr. Neumann, a career Foreign Service officer who held ambassadorships in Algeria, Bahrain and Afghanistan. “But I don’t recollect there was ever a guillotine in January where it was just, ‘Everybody out of the pool immediately.’”"

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.n...tics/trump-ambassadors.amp.html?client=safari
 
MaggieD said:
Read carefully.



And one paragraph later...



This is just one more example of the slanted news coverage we continue to get. And this is from FOX.
Click to expand...

It is standard practice for every president, since ambassadors are political appointes.

The problem this time around is Trumps erratic twitter driven policy crap that causes international problems, that normally an ambassador would be there to iron out. Not so much this time around, but then the second in command at the embassy gets the very un-envious job of grovelling and apologising for his commander in chiefs idiotic comments.
 
MaggieD said:
OMG. No WONDER we have a problem disseminating information in this country.
Click to expand...

We always knew that citizens need to be smart enough to digest that information, then act on it, they (we) need to guide this bus.. we decide.

But then we decided that indoctrinating our kids with liberalism, and beating them into submission, was more important.

That's what we now task the schools to do, Education was that stuff all around your grandpa's school.

We have GOT to learn to prioritize.
 
Yeah, as another poster already mentioned, it looks to me like the bias is in favor of Trump, not Obama. Obama granted some extensions due to circumstances, whereas Trump is reportedly not going to do so. I suspect that a fair portion of Fox News consumers think that Trump's action is good anyway--that is, Fox isn't presenting this as a criticism of Trump, but as praise of Trump...which is disturbing in itself.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Not really a big deal, all things considered. I mean does anyone expect Trump to not grandstand? It's all it is, same as when Obama did it. A move that projects a resolve for change and hurts nothing.
Click to expand...

MaggieD said:
What grandstand?? He didn't do anything differently than Obama. Did you READ?
Click to expand...

Did you?
 
MaggieD said:
Ambassador appointments are perks.

The slant is misleading.

"Look what Trump did!! OMG!"

"Oh, wait. Obama did the same thing."
Click to expand...

Perks? I don't get how they are perquisites.

Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom