Most of the big ones are such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and the like.Quote:
Arent most ambassadorships closely related to campaign donations?
Yes. It is the politicization of the appointments rather than accenting suitability that is why State tends to get us into wars or crisis that might have been averted. Its a very important position to just make it a political sop ,but pretty much all the administrations do it. Many foreign governments too.Rapier108 said:Most of the big ones are such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and the like.Quote:
Arent most ambassadorships closely related to campaign donations?
The rest are usually filled with existing state department employees. The troublemakers get sent to places like the Congo.
Not at all. We have a Constitution with three equal branches and numerous checks and balances against abuse of power, and that includes limits on a President's power to select and fire ambassadors:93MarineHorn said:I'm sure you've already done it, but now you've "jumped the shark" or whatever term means that you've gone so far you can never come back. You've lost, again.Quote:
MetoliusAg said:
Actually it does matter. Presidents have an oath of office and Constitutional responsibilities they must uphold and conform to. Presidents have great leeway on foreign policy, choosing ambassadors, etc, but choosing and firing ambassadors isn't an unlimited Presidential power.
Well, she does have Mogadishu on her resume. Just sayin'.Rapier108 said:Most of the big ones are such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and the like.Quote:
Arent most ambassadorships closely related to campaign donations?
The rest are usually filled with existing state department employees. The troublemakers get sent to places like the Congo.
Depends on the country. We don't send a naive zero-experience clueless sop like Sondland to a place like Russia. Not if there's a competent administration in the WH, that is.titan said:Yes. It is the politicization of the appointments rather than accenting suitability that is why State tends to get us into wars or crisis that might have been averted. Its a very important position to just make it a political sop ,but pretty much all the administrations do it. Many foreign governments too.Rapier108 said:Most of the big ones are such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and the like.Quote:
Arent most ambassadorships closely related to campaign donations?
The rest are usually filled with existing state department employees. The troublemakers get sent to places like the Congo.
Actually the politics trumps the correctness of choice more often than not. It truly surprises how much of an admin's cabinet and embassy staff will be political appointments or rewards, etc. And its not just America doing it. Many wars are a product of incompetent obtuseness on the part of the embassy in conveying what is really desired,or what is unacceptable. Both extremes -- too obtuse to the country, or too friendly to the country, occur in history.MetoliusAg said:Depends on the country. We don't send a naive zero-experience clueless sop like Sondland to a place like Russia. Not if there's a competent administration in the WH, that is.titan said:Yes. It is the politicization of the appointments rather than accenting suitability that is why State tends to get us into wars or crisis that might have been averted. Its a very important position to just make it a political sop ,but pretty much all the administrations do it. Many foreign governments too.Rapier108 said:Most of the big ones are such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and the like.Quote:
Arent most ambassadorships closely related to campaign donations?
The rest are usually filled with existing state department employees. The troublemakers get sent to places like the Congo.
Matthew Barzun says hello!MetoliusAg said:Depends on the country. We don't send a naive zero-experience clueless sop like Sondland to a place like Russia. Not if there's a competent administration in the WH, that is.titan said:Yes. It is the politicization of the appointments rather than accenting suitability that is why State tends to get us into wars or crisis that might have been averted. Its a very important position to just make it a political sop ,but pretty much all the administrations do it. Many foreign governments too.Rapier108 said:Most of the big ones are such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and the like.Quote:
Arent most ambassadorships closely related to campaign donations?
The rest are usually filled with existing state department employees. The troublemakers get sent to places like the Congo.
Skull crushed. lololololololololololololololololololololololol *deep breath* lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololRapier108 said:MetoliusAg said:Actually it does matter. Presidents have an oath of office and Constitutional responsibilities they must uphold and conform to. Presidents have great leeway on foreign policy, choosing ambassadors, etc, but choosing and firing ambassadors isn't an unlimited Presidential power.hbtheduce said:
Doesn't matter and doesn't matter. Firing an ambassador is well within the purview of the president.
Please provide citations supporting your assertions. I'll wait.MetoliusAg said:Not at all. We have a Constitution with three equal branches and numerous checks and balances against abuse of power, and that includes limits on a President's power to select and fire ambassadors:93MarineHorn said:I'm sure you've already done it, but now you've "jumped the shark" or whatever term means that you've gone so far you can never come back. You've lost, again.Quote:
MetoliusAg said:
Actually it does matter. Presidents have an oath of office and Constitutional responsibilities they must uphold and conform to. Presidents have great leeway on foreign policy, choosing ambassadors, etc, but choosing and firing ambassadors isn't an unlimited Presidential power.
-- If a President fired an ambassador for any number of illegal reasons (hypothetical example: if a female ambassador refused to have sex with the President's pal, the SecState) or for any number of national security reasons or corrupt reasons (hypothetical example: an ambassador refuses to participate/go along with a corruption or bribery scheme), that action by a POTUS would be a serious violation of the oath of office and should result in impeachment by the HoR followed by Senate removal of the President.
So clearly there are Constitutional limits and consequences on the Presidential powers to choose and fire ambassadors.
MetoliusAg said:Not at all. We have a Constitution with three equal branches and numerous checks and balances against abuse of power, and that includes limits on a President's power to select and fire ambassadors:93MarineHorn said:I'm sure you've already done it, but now you've "jumped the shark" or whatever term means that you've gone so far you can never come back. You've lost, again.Quote:
MetoliusAg said:
Actually it does matter. Presidents have an oath of office and Constitutional responsibilities they must uphold and conform to. Presidents have great leeway on foreign policy, choosing ambassadors, etc, but choosing and firing ambassadors isn't an unlimited Presidential power.
-- If a President fired an ambassador for any number of illegal reasons (hypothetical example: if a female ambassador refused to have sex with the President's pal, the SecState) or for any number of national security reasons or corrupt reasons (hypothetical example: an ambassador refuses to participate/go along with a corruption or bribery scheme), that action by a POTUS would be a serious violation of the oath of office and should result in impeachment by the HoR followed by Senate removal of the President.
So clearly there are Constitutional limits and consequences on the Presidential powers to choose and fire ambassadors.
Historically since WW2 about 30% of US ambassadors usually are political appointees in each administration. The other 70% are chosen from career professional State Dept. employees, people like Taylor and Yovanovitch.titan said:Actually the politics trumps the correctness of choice more often than not. It truly surprises how much of an admin's cabinet and embassy staff will be political appointments or rewards, etc. And its not just America doing it. Many wars are a product of incompetent obtuseness on the part of the embassy in conveying what is really desired,or what is unacceptable. Both extremes -- too obtuse to the country, or too friendly to the country, occur in history.MetoliusAg said:Depends on the country. We don't send a naive zero-experience clueless sop like Sondland to a place like Russia. Not if there's a competent administration in the WH, that is.titan said:Yes. It is the politicization of the appointments rather than accenting suitability that is why State tends to get us into wars or crisis that might have been averted. Its a very important position to just make it a political sop ,but pretty much all the administrations do it. Many foreign governments too.Rapier108 said:Most of the big ones are such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and the like.Quote:
Arent most ambassadorships closely related to campaign donations?
The rest are usually filled with existing state department employees. The troublemakers get sent to places like the Congo.
Her salary is the same as it was for her cush overseas job.......to teach 1 class a week.MetoliusAg said:You have the USA confused with some other country. There was a revolution here against the British king; it formally began in 1776. We subsequently won that war. We haven't been subjects to a monarch or king for 243 years. Hth.Cassius said:MetoliusAg said:
Even though we have been reminded of it constantly for the past 3 years by Trump and his sycophants, it is still amazing to observe how far the Republican Party has voluntarily and quite deliberately chosen to lower itself. Here's Don Jr showing it again:
They should be subjected to more than firing, if there were any justice. Traitors and subversives.
Absolutely correct, dear. I've said that from the get-go.Quote:
Hunter and son should open their books, banking records and tax returns to prove their innocence, right? Isn't that the way you say this works?
Soo, darlin', Biden and son are obstructing justice, now for their failure to volunteer to prove their innocence, correct?MetoliusAg said:Absolutely correct, dear. I've said that from the get-go.Quote:
Hunter and son should open their books, banking records and tax returns to prove their innocence, right? Isn't that the way you say this works?
It applies to Rudy Giuliani and your hero President Trump, too.
My bad. I'll edit with my usual "darlin'"Rockdoc said:
You didn't say dear!
"Career professional State Department" track doesn't mean free from cronyism or being counterproductive diplomats. In fact, State is well known for a certain inertia that every now and then runs over cliffs or remains unseeing about events unfolding. The advancement process itself can be political and thus the choice. But this is true for both parties. And even the relationship with the Pentagon at times.Quote:
Historically since WW2 about 30% of US ambassadors usually are political appointees in each administration. The other 70% are chosen from career professional State Dept. employees, people like Taylor and Yovanovitch.
Actually agree with you that Castor was a huge failure. He sucks as an effective cross examiner.Quote:
I felt sorry for Castor on Wednesday and again today. He's a smart, competent attorney, but the facts are 99% against the side he's on. Can't make bread when you have no flour, yeast, or water.
I like how he conveniently ignores this post.Pinche Abogado said:Skull crushed. lololololololololololololololololololololololol *deep breath* lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololRapier108 said:MetoliusAg said:Actually it does matter. Presidents have an oath of office and Constitutional responsibilities they must uphold and conform to. Presidents have great leeway on foreign policy, choosing ambassadors, etc, but choosing and firing ambassadors isn't an unlimited Presidential power.hbtheduce said:
Doesn't matter and doesn't matter. Firing an ambassador is well within the purview of the president.
And why is Biden still a Presidential candidate?aggiehawg said:Soo, darlin', Biden and son are obstructing justice, now for their failure to volunteer to prove their innocence, correct?MetoliusAg said:Absolutely correct, dear. I've said that from the get-go.Quote:
Hunter and son should open their books, banking records and tax returns to prove their innocence, right? Isn't that the way you say this works?
It applies to Rudy Giuliani and your hero President Trump, too.
ETA: Obvious.
aggiehawg said:Actually agree with you that Castor was a huge failure. He sucks as an effective cross examiner.Quote:
I felt sorry for Castor on Wednesday and again today. He's a smart, competent attorney, but the facts are 99% against the side he's on. Can't make bread when you have no flour, yeast, or water.
MetoliusAg said:
Nunes and Elise Stefanik looked ridiculously bad on national tv today staging a dumb lie about the committee rules....rules which were written and put in place by Republicans Issa, Chaffowitz, Gowdy, Jordan, Meadows, and Pompeo when the R's held the House majority.
