In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 31 2017 07:52 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Looks like the normal result of mass quitting by former state department employees. Lots of unfilled positions. Is the shocker here supposed to be the critical role that the Under Secretary for Management and his secretaries and lieutenants performed? Previously covered: The Trump Administration promised a whole new foreign policy direction for the United States, so if they're opposed to serving a new president and his goals even just for the duration of one presidency, it's better that they quit than not follow the management, and by extension the American people's, direction.
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
It'll backfire spectacularly if they make a big play on Sessions or someone else. Obstructionism at it's finest. Some good signs are Schumer's support of guys like Pompeo and Mattis and Warren voting for Carson. How far do they really want to go holding up the nominations when the Republicans have enough to send them to work without a single Democrat vote?
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
Not quite. Lot's of Democrats have approved of several nominees (and some are rightfully catching static for it from the left). What the delays were about was the nominees not filling out their paperwork (or doing so incompletely) and then expecting senate Dems to just waive them on through. Only a total moron would have expected that to happen.
Have come up multiple times within the past few weeks. I see delay tactics at play.
Whether or not they should be doing that is a different story but I see a lot of deliberate delays on cabinet voting. I expect a few months of interim limbo.
Intentional delays yes, delays for the sake of delaying no. The nominees are already not doing their jobs, those who didn't should probably just pull their names from consideration themselves and get replaced with people who can at least correctly apply for the job.
Senate Dems are mostly showmen, but delaying the nominees is the appropriate thing to do, and basically their job regarding this particular process.
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
Not quite. Lot's of Democrats have approved of several nominees (and some are rightfully catching static for it from the left). What the delays were about was the nominees not filling out their paperwork (or doing so incompletely) and then expecting senate Dems to just waive them on through. Only a total moron would have expected that to happen.
Have come up multiple times within the past few weeks. I see delay tactics at play.
Whether or not they should be doing that is a different story but I see a lot of deliberate delays on cabinet voting. I expect a few months of interim limbo.
The situation at the State Departments is different from cabinet limbo. Reportedly, the State situation is unprecedented.
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Looks like the normal result of mass quitting by former state department employees. Lots of unfilled positions. Is the shocker here supposed to be the critical role that the Under Secretary for Management and his secretaries and lieutenants performed? Previously covered: The Trump Administration promised a whole new foreign policy direction for the United States, so if they're opposed to serving a new president and his goals even just for the duration of one presidency, it's better that they quit than not follow the management, and by extension the American people's, direction.
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
It'll backfire spectacularly if they make a big play on Sessions or someone else. Obstructionism at it's finest. Some good signs are Schumer's support of guys like Pompeo and Mattis and Warren voting for Carson. How far do they really want to go holding up the nominations when the Republicans have enough to send them to work without a single Democrat vote?
Did you read the guardian article? They did not quit, they were fired. Even if you ignore the weird conspiration theories in the blog fueledup linked (even if I'd like to know where this huge chunk of a Russian oil company went), it includes several links to some quality articles from good papers.
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Looks like the normal result of mass quitting by former state department employees. Lots of unfilled positions. Is the shocker here supposed to be the critical role that the Under Secretary for Management and his secretaries and lieutenants performed? Previously covered: The Trump Administration promised a whole new foreign policy direction for the United States, so if they're opposed to serving a new president and his goals even just for the duration of one presidency, it's better that they quit than not follow the management, and by extension the American people's, direction.
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
It'll backfire spectacularly if they make a big play on Sessions or someone else. Obstructionism at it's finest. Some good signs are Schumer's support of guys like Pompeo and Mattis and Warren voting for Carson. How far do they really want to go holding up the nominations when the Republicans have enough to send them to work without a single Democrat vote?
There's no such thing as a "normal" mass quitting by former state department employees. It does make it clear why Trump didn't consult with State pre-immigration order: there's pretty much no one left to consult!
“I don’t think you have to look any farther than the families of the Boston Marathon, in Atlanta, in San Bernardino, to ask if we can go further,” Spicer said.
None of the perpetrators of those terror attacks would have been affected by the executive order Trump signed on Friday.
(The suspect is believed to be a French Canadian Student who is possibly a white nationalist).
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with Sean Spicer? Forgetting even the politics of things how can anyone be this bad at their job at such a high level?
I have a feeling he's just doing his best impersonation of Mike McLintock.
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Looks like the normal result of mass quitting by former state department employees. Lots of unfilled positions. Is the shocker here supposed to be the critical role that the Under Secretary for Management and his secretaries and lieutenants performed? Previously covered: The Trump Administration promised a whole new foreign policy direction for the United States, so if they're opposed to serving a new president and his goals even just for the duration of one presidency, it's better that they quit than not follow the management, and by extension the American people's, direction.
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
It'll backfire spectacularly if they make a big play on Sessions or someone else. Obstructionism at it's finest. Some good signs are Schumer's support of guys like Pompeo and Mattis and Warren voting for Carson. How far do they really want to go holding up the nominations when the Republicans have enough to send them to work without a single Democrat vote?
There's no such thing as a "normal" mass quitting by former state department employees. It does make it clear why Trump didn't consult with State pre-immigration order: there's pretty much no one left to consult!
Nah, don't you know companies routinely fire all the VP's across all their departments without having their replacements or a transition plan in place? Only a top businessman like Trump would do such a thing.
On January 31 2017 08:30 LegalLord wrote: So if Trump is implementing all his promises verbatim, is declaring China a currency manipulator on the agenda yet?
The promises are now being made/implemented by Bannon.
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Looks like the normal result of mass quitting by former state department employees. Lots of unfilled positions. Is the shocker here supposed to be the critical role that the Under Secretary for Management and his secretaries and lieutenants performed? Previously covered: The Trump Administration promised a whole new foreign policy direction for the United States, so if they're opposed to serving a new president and his goals even just for the duration of one presidency, it's better that they quit than not follow the management, and by extension the American people's, direction.
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
It'll backfire spectacularly if they make a big play on Sessions or someone else. Obstructionism at it's finest. Some good signs are Schumer's support of guys like Pompeo and Mattis and Warren voting for Carson. How far do they really want to go holding up the nominations when the Republicans have enough to send them to work without a single Democrat vote?
There's no such thing as a "normal" mass quitting by former state department employees. It does make it clear why Trump didn't consult with State pre-immigration order: there's pretty much no one left to consult!
Nah, don't you know companies routinely fire all the VP's across all their departments without having their replacements or a transition plan in place? Only a top businessman like Trump would do such a thing.
trump's team and backers reserve particular scorn for the state department, for a variety of reasons.
WASHINGTON — Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, ordered the Justice Department on Monday not to defend President Trump’s executive order on immigration in court.
“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”
WASHINGTON — Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, ordered the Justice Department on Monday not to defend President Trump’s executive order on immigration in court.
“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”
I am not to familliar with this, is the attorney general a governement official or does she have some kind of independance? I am strongly against the presidencial executive order, but in court you should defend your position to the best of your capacity and only in regard to the law. And if you work for the government you should defend the governnent position, it's not up to lawyers to decide the law.
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Looks like the normal result of mass quitting by former state department employees. Lots of unfilled positions. Is the shocker here supposed to be the critical role that the Under Secretary for Management and his secretaries and lieutenants performed? Previously covered: The Trump Administration promised a whole new foreign policy direction for the United States, so if they're opposed to serving a new president and his goals even just for the duration of one presidency, it's better that they quit than not follow the management, and by extension the American people's, direction.
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
It'll backfire spectacularly if they make a big play on Sessions or someone else. Obstructionism at it's finest. Some good signs are Schumer's support of guys like Pompeo and Mattis and Warren voting for Carson. How far do they really want to go holding up the nominations when the Republicans have enough to send them to work without a single Democrat vote?
Did you read the guardian article? They did not quit, they were fired. Even if you ignore the weird conspiration theories in the blog fueledup linked (even if I'd like to know where this huge chunk of a Russian oil company went), it includes several links to some quality articles from good papers.
I was reading from Business Insider, though I remember seeing other outlets reporting.
Senior officials are fleeing the State Department in the first days of President Donald Trump's administration, according to The Washington Post.
Patrick Kennedy, the State Department's undersecretary for management, and three of his top officials resigned abruptly recently, The Post reported. All are career diplomats who have served under presidents from both parties.
Two other senior leaders in the State Department left earlier this month. Post columnist Josh Rogin characterized it as an "ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don't want to stick around for the Trump era."
David Wade, who was the State Department's chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry, told The Post that it's "the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember."
CNN and others quoting unnamed sources alleging they were pressured out, not free-choice resignations. I have yet to see interviews with the people that left nor sources willing to say on record that they were asked to leave. State Department spokesman said the opposite. So maybe, maybe not.
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Looks like the normal result of mass quitting by former state department employees. Lots of unfilled positions. Is the shocker here supposed to be the critical role that the Under Secretary for Management and his secretaries and lieutenants performed? Previously covered: The Trump Administration promised a whole new foreign policy direction for the United States, so if they're opposed to serving a new president and his goals even just for the duration of one presidency, it's better that they quit than not follow the management, and by extension the American people's, direction.
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
It'll backfire spectacularly if they make a big play on Sessions or someone else. Obstructionism at it's finest. Some good signs are Schumer's support of guys like Pompeo and Mattis and Warren voting for Carson. How far do they really want to go holding up the nominations when the Republicans have enough to send them to work without a single Democrat vote?
There's no such thing as a "normal" mass quitting by former state department employees. It does make it clear why Trump didn't consult with State pre-immigration order: there's pretty much no one left to consult!
If you can read it again, the "normal result" of people leaving positions is unfilled positions. Agree?
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Looks like the normal result of mass quitting by former state department employees. Lots of unfilled positions. Is the shocker here supposed to be the critical role that the Under Secretary for Management and his secretaries and lieutenants performed? Previously covered: The Trump Administration promised a whole new foreign policy direction for the United States, so if they're opposed to serving a new president and his goals even just for the duration of one presidency, it's better that they quit than not follow the management, and by extension the American people's, direction.
On January 31 2017 08:01 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democrats said they want to hold up confirmations for Trump nominees as long as possible. Besides Trump being Trump we also have something of a pseudo government shutdown right now.
It'll backfire spectacularly if they make a big play on Sessions or someone else. Obstructionism at it's finest. Some good signs are Schumer's support of guys like Pompeo and Mattis and Warren voting for Carson. How far do they really want to go holding up the nominations when the Republicans have enough to send them to work without a single Democrat vote?
Did you read the guardian article? They did not quit, they were fired. Even if you ignore the weird conspiration theories in the blog fueledup linked (even if I'd like to know where this huge chunk of a Russian oil company went), it includes several links to some quality articles from good papers.
Many of them did quit, though, and I can't be more accurate than that weasel word right now because it seems like nobody has precise information about the State Department right now because of the news whirlwind. But for example, in the linked chart with red Xs and blue Xs where red = purged and blue = unfilled, most of the positions are blue, not red. If the positions are unfilled but weren't purged (marked blue, not red), then what does one take from that generally except to assume that they resigned or retired or transferred or otherwise left for some reason other than being purged?
KELEMEN: Boucher says the new secretary will have to depend on career diplomats who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations - the kind of people that have been retiring this month.
BOUCHER: To lose a chunk of them at the transition and not have a new team ready to go is troublesome.
KELEMEN: The Trump administration has not yet filled many posts, from deputy secretary of state on down. Most of the career diplomats who are leaving are close to retirement age. A thirty-nine-year-old diplomatic security agent was a rare younger official who decided to quit for what he calls moral reasons. T.J. Lunardi sees some of Trump's views as against the U.S. Constitution, which he took an oath to support.
T J LUNARDI: I think the type of resistance that this administration is already proving itself to require and, in my opinion, before it even started, would require is not the kind of thing you can or frankly should do from inside the government.
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Boy, that's a spooky article. I mean, supposing Trump did want to seize complete and unchecked power, he'd basically have Congress, the courts, and the military able to oppose him. If he can normalize total contempt of court, that's one of three that can no longer stop him.
I am not to familliar with this, is the attorney general a governement official or does she have some kind of independance? I am strongly against the presidencial executive order, but in court you should defend your position to the best of your capacity and only in regard to the law. And if you work for the government you should defend the governnent position, it's not up to lawyers to decide the law.
They do work for the government,she was appointed by Obama. It seems unlikely she can get away with this but she must feel pretty secure in doing this. Are the democrats seriously considering to continue the war against trump from inside the government apparatus? 50% of all people working for the government probably don't agree with trump,this is a horrible precedent lol.
The democrats/neo liberal movement are purposely steering towards a huge crisis and they seem to be in a hurry. Ima put some money on trump not making 1 full year in office,that should still give decent odds like 5/1.
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/600/1*8IDunC3Egvsw1Lr9_o6yxA.png)
