Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
#1

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
I'm not even shocked at all, which is precisely the problem.  First there was Comey, and now there's Vindman and Sondland.  And those are just the successful firings that we know about!  Who knows how many other vindictive dismissals that were either curtailed or kept secret from the public!  I can't be the only one who's seeing a pattern here.  Of course, the fact that Trump shamelessly demands loyalty and seeks to purge dissent was already obvious and has been for quite some time, but consider the timing of these particular retaliations.  It is very likely that he took his acquittal in the Senate as further confirmation that he has full license to pull stunts like this.

Susan Collins claimed to believe that Trump has learned an important lesson from the trial.   Facepalm Okay, Susie, listen.  Trump rarely learns anything, because learning means acknowledging that he was wrong, and his massive yet fragile ego hardly ever allows that.  Plus, on the rare occasion that he does learn something, it often makes things worse, because the lesson he takes from it tends to be completely antithetical to what any sane person would hope for.  He didn't learn not to abuse his power.  He learned that he can abuse his power quite freely, because Congress sure as hell isn't going to hold him accountable!

This really is the sort of thing that happens in "banana republics"!  Trump needs to be reminded in no uncertain terms that he's a President, not a dictator, but any attempt would be drowned out by the cry of, "Dictate away!" coming from the Republicans in Congress.  Now, Trump is nowhere near clever or shrewd enough to have deliberately planned to undermine democracy, but in his reckless selfishness, that's exactly what he's doing.  He's establishing dangerous precedents and moving the Overton window of Presidential behavior in a very perilous direction!

Have we reached a point of no return on an inevitable descent into autocracy?  I doubt it.  Relatively speaking, I think we're still in the early stages of devolving into dictatorship.  If we play our cards right, we can undo at least some of the damage and maybe even emerge wiser from the experience.  There is still hope, but let us make no mistake.  We stand on the crest of a slope more slippery than many would like to believe, and to continue accommodating Trump is to run a risk that no American, Republican or Democrat, should ever be willing to take.

This is how democracy ends: not with a coup, but with a con man.

And on that admittedly pretentious note, thanks for letting me vent!
The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. - Carl Sagan
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις. - Κᾱ́ρολος Σήγανος


The following 5 users Like Glossophile's post:
  • Alan V, julep, Dom, Unsapien, Phaedrus
Reply
#2

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
An apocryphal quote often attributed (incorrectly) to Sinclair Lewis:

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying the Bible."
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Dānu, Dom, Old Man Marsh
Reply
#3

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
Plus Vindman's brother, who had absolutely nothing to do with anything. Trump has said before in some context that one has to go after the families. His brethren in North Korea also go after families.  I find that even more alarming, if that is even possible.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 3 users Like Dom's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Alan V, Chas
Reply
#4

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
The phrase

"I serve at the Pleasure of the President" is unfamiliar to you?

The phrase was originally intended to mean that White House staff are ‘at will’ employees and can be let go without a substantive reason.

https://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item13997

Selective outrage is a symptom of confirmation bias. Probably never heard of the guy below:

[Image: sT140R9.png]
Reply
#5

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 04:25 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: The phrase

"I serve at the Pleasure of the President" is unfamiliar to you?

No one is arguing against that. Since you seem to be having a problem understanding the nature of Dom's point, let me put it plainly: collective guilt is unethical.

Should your brother get fired because your supervisor doesn't like your shitposting?

I suggest you take more English lessons, Comrade.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Deesse23, Minimalist
Reply
#6

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
Listen, Trumpolini is nothing more than a mob boss.  I imagine he would have preferred to have Vindman and Sondland and the rest whacked.  The day may come when the fucker thinks he can get away with that, too.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Dom, Thumpalumpacus, abaris
Reply
#7

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 04:25 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: Selective outrage is a symptom of confirmation bias.  

[Image: tenor.gif?itemid=12598382]
[Image: giant%20meteor%202020.jpg]
The following 4 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Alan V, Dom, Fireball, SYZ
Reply
#8

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
He's outraged at whatever Putin selects.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#9

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 04:25 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: The phrase

"I serve at the Pleasure of the President" is unfamiliar to you?

The phrase was originally intended to mean that White House staff are ‘at will’ employees and can be let go without a substantive reason.

https://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item13997

Selective outrage is a symptom of confirmation bias.  Probably never heard of the guy below:

[Image: sT140R9.png]

I'm not sure if the two cases are comparable (for one thing, Mr. Joseph wasn't under oath like Vindman and Sondland were), but assuming for the sake of argument that they are, I'll join you in at least raising an eyebrow at this move by the Obama administration.  I'd have to know more before concluding that "outrage" is justified here.  I'm under no obligation to maintain that Obama was a saint, but nor am I under any obligation to pretend that Trump hasn't given us far more to be outraged and/or unsettled by than Obama ever did.

More importantly, whatever skeletons may lie in Obama's closet, to my knowledge at least, none of them have noticeably marred the standards of executive behavior.  Trump, on the other hand, repeatedly gets away with anti-democratic gestures that, not so long ago, would've absolutely scandalized both sides of the aisle. It's a steady pattern of conduct the likes of which we never saw in Obama (or really in any of his predecessors, at least in living memory).

Also, whether Trump can fire certain officials is not the issue here.  The issue is whether he should, given the clearly personal and vindictive motive for exercising that power.  Legal or not, the decision is further reflection of an authoritarian mindset that we should all be aware and leery of.  Trump is once again trying to purge even the most legitimate dissent or opposition from his ranks, showing once more that he seeks the kind of loyalty and ideological purity that dictators thrive on.  There's a reason that, as your own source says, the phrase "at the pleasure of" is closely associated with royalty.
The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. - Carl Sagan
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις. - Κᾱ́ρολος Σήγανος


The following 3 users Like Glossophile's post:
  • Alan V, Rainy_D, Dom
Reply
#10

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 05:46 PM)Glossophile Wrote: Also, whether Trump can fire certain officials is not the issue here.  The issue is whether he should, given the clearly personal and vindictive motive for exercising that power.  Legal or not, the decision is further reflection of an authoritarian mindset that we should all be aware and leery of.  Trump is once again trying to purge even the most legitimate dissent or opposition from his ranks, showing once more that he seeks the kind of loyalty and ideological purity that dictators thrive on.  There's a reason that, as your own source says, the phrase "at the pleasure of" is closely associated with royalty.

Lincoln put together a team of rivals.  Trump wants a team of yes-men.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Minimalist, Dom
Reply
#11

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 05:49 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(02-09-2020, 05:46 PM)Glossophile Wrote: Also, whether Trump can fire certain officials is not the issue here.  The issue is whether he should, given the clearly personal and vindictive motive for exercising that power.  Legal or not, the decision is further reflection of an authoritarian mindset that we should all be aware and leery of.  Trump is once again trying to purge even the most legitimate dissent or opposition from his ranks, showing once more that he seeks the kind of loyalty and ideological purity that dictators thrive on.  There's a reason that, as your own source says, the phrase "at the pleasure of" is closely associated with royalty.

Lincoln put together a team of rivals.  Trump wants a team of yes-men.

FDR put together competing teams as well.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
The following 1 user Likes Gawdzilla Sama's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#12

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 05:46 PM)Glossophile Wrote:
(02-09-2020, 04:25 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: The phrase

"I serve at the Pleasure of the President" is unfamiliar to you?

The phrase was originally intended to mean that White House staff are ‘at will’ employees and can be let go without a substantive reason.

https://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item13997

Selective outrage is a symptom of confirmation bias.  Probably never heard of the guy below:

[Image: sT140R9.png]

I'm not sure if the two cases are comparable (for one thing, Mr. Joseph wasn't under oath like Vindman and Sondland were), but assuming for the sake of argument that they are, I'll join you in at least raising an eyebrow at this move by the Obama administration.  I'd have to know more before concluding that "outrage" is justified here.  I'm under no obligation to maintain that Obama was a saint, but nor am I under any obligation to pretend that Trump hasn't given us far more to be outraged and/or unsettled by than Obama ever did.  More importantly, whatever skeletons may lie in Obama's closet, to my knowledge at least, none of them have noticeably marred the standards of executive behavior.  Trump, on the other hand, repeatedly gets away with anti-democratic gestures that, not so long ago, would've absolutely scandalized both sides of the aisle.  It's a steady pattern of conduct the likes of which we never saw in Obama (or really in any of his predecessors, at least in living memory).

Also, whether Trump can fire certain officials is not the issue here.  The issue is whether he should, given the clearly personal and vindictive motive for exercising that power.  Legal or not, the decision is further reflection of an authoritarian mindset that we should all be aware and leery of.  Trump is once again trying to purge even the most legitimate dissent or opposition from his ranks, showing once more that he seeks the kind of loyalty and ideological purity that dictators thrive on.  There's a reason that, as your own source says, the phrase "at the pleasure of" is closely associated with royalty.

The two cases are not comparable, as the Joseph case was far more an abuse of power than the reassignment of Vindman and removal of Sondland.  How can you not read the transcripts, listen to these guys and not think you (as the upper management) would be better off without their services?

Vindman [reassigned] had methods of reporting his disagreement with policy up his chain of command.  He chose to expand upon that out of a sincerely held belief, but a belief that seems to be incompatible with the agenda of the current administration.  You can listen to Vindmans testimony and easily realize he does not have access to the same information as the Sec. of State or the President, but remains sooo convinced he is correct that it interferes with him doing this particular assignment.   This makes his services undesirable within the administration.


Sondland is a casualty of self-making.  He gave testimony, appears to have memory issues on some pretty important topics under his charge and then changes sworn testimony [insubstantially imho] but these various actions do reveal a person who may not be suited for such responsibilities.

But in your own response I see the same issue.  Its not that Trump has no grounds for removal from the position(s), its the bias against Trump [vs Obama] as to whether the actions are reprehensible or not.  Many things in our customs and laws have a source that dates back to some kind of royalty, but to imply that negates the validity of the modern use is unrealistic.
The following 1 user Likes Rainy_D's post:
  • jerry mcmasters
Reply
#13

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 07:09 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: How can you not read the transcripts, listen to these guys and not think you (as the upper management) would be better off without their services?

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and assume for the sake of argument that both Vindman and Sondland were indeed incompetent or otherwise ill-suited for their jobs.

First of all, if competence or lack thereof is the main criterion, then at the very least, it's being applied rather inconsistently, and inconsistently in a way that suspiciously favors those willing to toe the Trumpist line over those who might challenge it.  If it were really about incompetence, for instance, Betsy deVoss never would've come within a stone's throw of her current position, and Comey would still be the FBI director.  Second, the timing is also highly suspicious if we assume more legitimate motives for the recent firings/reassignments.  Third, I'd be more inclined to agree with you if this was just a one-off incident.  But like I said, this is part of a whole pattern of behavior.

It's technically possible that, in a rare bout of lucidity that just happened to have unfortunate timing, Trump really did realize that Vindman and Sondland genuinely weren't a good fit .  But given all the stunts we know he's pulled or tried to pull, given how thin-skinned and self-serving he's shown himself to be time and time again, it seems incredibly naive at this point to consider that likelihood as anything other than negligible (pending any unforeseen evidence, of course).  If this can be called a bias, it's a bias of Trump's own making, simply because his history precedes him. In short, for now at least, there's a strong inductive case for Trump being motivated mainly if not solely by a desire to punish disloyalty, and that's what makes his actions reprehensible.

(02-09-2020, 07:09 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: Many things in our customs and laws have a source that dates back to some kind of royalty, but to imply that negates the validity of the modern use is unrealistic.

Not if that modern usage still serves primarily to bolster the same autocratic tendencies it supported in royal contexts of old.
The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. - Carl Sagan
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις. - Κᾱ́ρολος Σήγανος


Reply
#14

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 08:38 PM)Glossophile Wrote:
(02-09-2020, 07:09 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: How can you not read the transcripts, listen to these guys and not think you (as the upper management) would be better off without their services?

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and assume for the sake of argument that both Vindman and Sondland were indeed incompetent or otherwise ill-suited for their jobs.

First of all, if competence or lack thereof is the main criterion, then at the very least, it's being applied rather inconsistently, and inconsistently in a way that suspiciously favors those willing to toe the Trumpist line over those who might challenge it.  If it were really about incompetence, for instance, Betsy deVoss never would've come within a stone's throw of her current position, and Comey would still be the FBI director.  Second, the timing is also highly suspicious if we assume more legitimate motives for the recent firings/reassignments.  Third, I'd be more inclined to agree with you if this was just a one-off incident.  But like I said, this is part of a whole pattern of behavior.

It's technically possible that, in a rare bout of lucidity that just happened to have unfortunate timing, Trump really did realize that Vindman and Sondland genuinely weren't a good fit .  But given Trump's history as President, given all the stunts we know he's pulled or tried to pull, given how thin-skinned and self-serving he's shown himself to be time and time again, it seems incredibly naive at this point to consider that likelihood as anything other than negligible (pending any unforeseen evidence, of course).  If this can be called a bias, it's a bias of Trump's own making, simply because his history precedes him.  In short, for now at least, there's a strong inductive case for Trump being motivated mainly if not solely by a desire to punish disloyalty, and that's what makes his actions reprehensible.

(02-09-2020, 07:09 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: Many things in our customs and laws have a source that dates back to some kind of royalty, but to imply that negates the validity of the modern use is unrealistic.

Not if that modern usage still serves primarily to bolster the same autocratic tendencies it supported in royal contexts of old.

They made the incompetence a public spectacle.  So what if Trump wants loyalty from his employees?  I dont think I have ever had a job that the boss did not require loyalty to the company.  I know when I worked in gov, my public face had to be one of support for whatever the 'people in authority' decided the proper course of action should be for that dept.  Once in a while you will get a boss who comes back later and says "sheesh, you were right" but don't count on it.  So there are no real surprises from Trump when you put boss/employee/contract worker/et al into the proper context.  Trump hired Sondland.  Trump fired Sondland.

NSC(?) assigned Vindman with the white house permission (as I understand it). White house revoked that permission.  Vindman will be reassigned (unless there is more than we know) just like that Ambassador went back to the State Dept when her services were no longer needed in Ukraine.  Sondland does not have that kind of employee fall back to Dept whence he came.  He was an outside hire.

autocratic... still didn't negate the validity of the modern use
Reply
#15

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
Wait, Vindman was incompetent? Let us see your C.V. so that we may assess the value of your judgement, @Rainy_D?
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Fireball
Reply
#16

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 04:43 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Listen, Trumpolini is nothing more than a mob boss.  I imagine he would have preferred to have Vindman and Sondland and the rest whacked.  The day may come when the fucker thinks he can get away with that, too.

He already said that he could shoot someone on (I don't recall the particular street) and get away with it. So yes, basically he is a mob boss. Just less endearing than the crew of Lucky Luciano, Al Capone and all the others. They had some style at least.
The following 1 user Likes abaris's post:
  • Dom
Reply
#17

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 10:08 PM)abaris Wrote:
(02-09-2020, 04:43 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Listen, Trumpolini is nothing more than a mob boss.  I imagine he would have preferred to have Vindman and Sondland and the rest whacked.  The day may come when the fucker thinks he can get away with that, too.

He already said that he could shoot someone on (I don't recall the particular street) and get away with it. So yes, basically he is a mob boss. Just less endearing than the crew of Lucky Luciano, Al Capone and all the others. They had some style at least.

And hats. They had cool hats.
Reply
#18

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 09:31 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: So what if Trump wants loyalty from his employees?  I dont think I have ever had a job that the boss did not require loyalty to the company.

Loyalty to the company, but not loyalty to the boss personally.  That's the key difference!  For example, Comey wasn't fired for disloyalty to the United States of America.  He was fired for disloyalty to Donald John Trump.  Loyalty to one's country is desirable under any government.  Loyalty to any particular leader is only desirable in authoritarian regimes.

(02-09-2020, 09:31 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: So there are no real surprises from Trump when you put boss/employee/contract worker/et al into the proper context.  Trump hired Sondland.  Trump fired Sondland.

I've humored the analogy until now, but this is where I feel the need to highlight what is arguably the more important point here.  GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS.  There are certain comparable aspects, sure, but there are also fundamental differences.  Let's take the whole quid pro quo thing as an example.  It's practically the foundation of commerce (quid = money, quo = goods and/or services) and thus perfectly acceptable in that sphere, but it's quite inappropriate in the very governmental/diplomatic context in which Trump attempted to enact it.  What you've just said is a bit like defending bribery by analogizing it to perfectly legitimate commercial transactions.  Yes, at their core, they're arguably the same thing, but context and medium both matter.

This is precisely what I consider to be a major problem at the heart of the shameful farce that is the Trump Presidency.  Trump seems to have taken on the Presidency thinking he could run the US like another one of his corporations or ventures.  Much of his behavior seems consistent with this idea.  There's a decent chance that, had he tried to extort Ukraine during his first month or so in office, he would've been acting under the sincere misapprehension that it was no worse than the kind of high-end business deal he's supposedly such a pro at in the business world.  Hell, the statement "Trump is a businessman" and a subsequent analogy with signing a check actually came up as a sort of defense during the impeachment hearing!  Of course, he has much less of an excuse now that the whole Russia investigation should've taught him that that sort of thing is controversial at the very least, but that's precisely the problem.  Trump thinking he could run a democratic government like a corporate entity would almost be forgivable if he showed any willingness to learn otherwise and adapt accordingly.  But crucially, that's where his thin-skinned narcissism comes into play, compelling him to bulldoze ahead with that infelicitous mindset, acting downright miffed and defiant when those around him try to reign him in.  I think it's long past the point where even a dimwit like Trump can plead ignorance.  If he didn't know better when he was first elected, he definitely should now.  He just doesn't care.  And why would he, when Republican sycophants are all too willing to facilitate his delusions of being beyond accountability?

In some sense, even if we grant the government-as-business analogy, Trump still tends to act in his own personal best interests rather than the best interests of the company/brand (i.e. the country), making him a corrupt CEO in the same way that he's a corrupt President.   Even if the State Department really is better off without Vindman and Sondland, it's quite unlikely that they were fired or reassigned for that reason, and that's the broader problem.  Trump clearly wants to be surrounded by doting yes-men.  This may be acceptable and perhaps even effective in a business, but in an ostensibly democratic government, it's a symptom of a dangerous trend that undermines the freedoms on which the republic relies. Yet Trump continues to set precedents that make America increasingly susceptible to devolution into something much more dictatorial. Either he's too stupid to realize that, or he knows it and just doesn't give a damn. In neither case is he fit for office.
The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. - Carl Sagan
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις. - Κᾱ́ρολος Σήγανος


The following 2 users Like Glossophile's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Deesse23
Reply
#19

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
They should have resigned and denied him the pleasure.

Here's to hoping resignation becomes a thing prior to the general election.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • Fireball
Reply
#20

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
A normal human being would not fire anyone for obeying the law.

Trumpolini is not normal.  He is a sleazy pig with a criminal history and a treasonous future.  One can expect nothing else from such a sack of shit.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Fireball
Reply
#21

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 09:31 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: So what if Trump wants loyalty from his employees?  I dont think I have ever had a job that the boss did not require loyalty to the company.

What you don't seem to understand is that with civil servants, the company is the nation. They work for us. We are the shareholders. Any thinking citizen in a democracy understands this.
The following 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Fireball, Glossophile, Chas, Old Man Marsh, SYZ
Reply
#22

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 10:34 PM)Glossophile Wrote: Trump clearly wants to be surrounded by doting yes-men.  This may be acceptable and perhaps even effective in a business, but in an ostensibly democratic government, it's a symptom of a dangerous trend that undermines the freedoms on which the republic relies.  Yet Trump continues to set precedents that make America increasingly susceptible to devolution into something much more dictatorial.  Either he's too stupid to realize that, or he knows it and just doesn't give a damn.  In neither case is he fit for office.

I don't think Trump has any idea of the difference between "yes-man" and "team player". It seems to me that "team player" is predicated on "yes man" being present, in Trump's mind. But you can have dissent from committed team members, and make better decisions as a result -- they've been challenged already. It's possible to both disagree with orders and still carry them out to the best of one's abilities.

I think LtCol Vindman served a higher loyalty aptly and honorably. He knew what he was getting into, is my bet, and he went in all the same.
The following 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Fireball, Glossophile, Deesse23, Old Man Marsh
Reply
#23

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-10-2020, 02:13 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-09-2020, 10:34 PM)Glossophile Wrote: Trump clearly wants to be surrounded by doting yes-men.  This may be acceptable and perhaps even effective in a business, but in an ostensibly democratic government, it's a symptom of a dangerous trend that undermines the freedoms on which the republic relies.  Yet Trump continues to set precedents that make America increasingly susceptible to devolution into something much more dictatorial.  Either he's too stupid to realize that, or he knows it and just doesn't give a damn.  In neither case is he fit for office.

I don't think Trump has any idea of the difference between "yes-man" and "team player". It seems to me that "team player" is predicated on "yes man" being present. One can have dissent from committed team members, and make better decisions as a result -- they've been challenged already.

I think LtCol Vindman served a higher loyalty aptly and honorably. He knew what he was getting into, is my bet, and he went in all the same.

Therein lies the difference between serving one's country honorably or callow application of a position of authority for personal gain.
The following 2 users Like Fireball's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Chas
Reply
#24

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-10-2020, 02:23 AM)Fireball Wrote:
(02-10-2020, 02:13 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-09-2020, 10:34 PM)Glossophile Wrote: Trump clearly wants to be surrounded by doting yes-men.  This may be acceptable and perhaps even effective in a business, but in an ostensibly democratic government, it's a symptom of a dangerous trend that undermines the freedoms on which the republic relies.  Yet Trump continues to set precedents that make America increasingly susceptible to devolution into something much more dictatorial.  Either he's too stupid to realize that, or he knows it and just doesn't give a damn.  In neither case is he fit for office.

I don't think Trump has any idea of the difference between "yes-man" and "team player". It seems to me that "team player" is predicated on "yes man" being present. One can have dissent from committed team members, and make better decisions as a result -- they've been challenged already.

I think LtCol Vindman served a higher loyalty aptly and honorably. He knew what he was getting into, is my bet, and he went in all the same.

Therein lies the difference between serving one's country honorably or callow application of a position of authority for personal gain.

It's hard to attack motive when such self-sacrifice is a sure-fire bet. Especially after a long and lauded career.

I'm glad the Army has officers of this caliber. Leave it to a lower rank to mouth off. Smile
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Fireball
Reply
#25

A Rant on the Firing of Vindman and Sondland
(02-09-2020, 10:34 PM)Glossophile Wrote: Loyalty to the company, but not loyalty to the boss personally.  That's the key difference!  For example, Comey wasn't fired for disloyalty to the United States of America.  He was fired for disloyalty to Donald John Trump.  Loyalty to one's country is desirable under any government.  Loyalty to any particular leader is only desirable in authoritarian regimes.
There is no 'key difference' except in the imagination of some who have no real life experience with a boss / agenda relationship.   Who is the company Sondland worked for?  It was not the We the People.  We the people are the shareholders of benefits (or loss) from Sondlands dealings as ambassador to the EU.  Sondland was a branch manager of a global advertising corp called U.S.A. Ambassador(s), who seems to have needed to dabble in Ukraine due to the temp employee Trump placed there while deciding whether or not to invest real resources into the corruption laden [shithole] country of Ukraine. - something I have voiced I think we should run-not-walk away from -. 

Let Russia have Ukraine.  Reality check, Russia doesnt want them, they wanted Crimea.  Crimea voted they wanted out of the shithole Ukraine [their own brexit].  No one wants to live in Ukraine.  People are fleeing.  It has a population loss ongoing.  Vindmans family ran from Ukraine... 

Quote:Why is the population of Ukraine decreasing?
The country's population has been declining since the 1990s because of a high emigration rate, coupled with high death rates and low birth rates. The population has been shrinking by an average of over 300,000 annually since 1993. In 2007, the country's rate of population decline was the fourth highest in the world.


https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Demographics_of_Ukraine

In closing, its a shame Trump couldn't send our taxpayer monies back to the Treasury Dept rather than shoveling bag fulls of money down the endless tunnel of 'foreign aid', never to fill and american pot hole or replace a worn out bridge crossing some mighty river, but hey, congress allocated the funds, so those monies must leave the good ol USofA.

But but but Muh Russia....


and
Comey was fired for not doing a his job.

https://www.newsweek.com/why-james-comey...fbi-606372

I thought he should have been fired the day Trump took office. 

(02-09-2020, 09:31 PM)Rainy_D Wrote: So there are no real surprises from Trump when you put boss/employee/contract worker/et al into the proper context.  Trump hired Sondland.  Trump fired Sondland.

Glossophile Wrote:GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS.  SnipContent
There are certain comparable aspects, sure, but there are also fundamental differences.

I didn't say government is solely a business. Trump was definitely Sondlands superior in every aspect of Sondlands government service.  And vindman was reassigned.

EoF
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)