[jquery]

You're right, Obama didn't do the "exact same thing." He literally auctioned off the posts, giving the ambassadorships to campaign contributors and bundlers ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-ambassador-nom... ). It's easy to find replacements if you don't care about qualifications and just reward your donor list, I guess. One of the ambassadors was so bad, staffers working for her requested transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan - http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/report-rips-us-envoy-w...

So, yes, some posts may be left without an immediate replacement, but it's not cause for panic if the alternative is immediately filling the posts with unqualified campaign donors.

EDIT: These are undisputed facts in response to a hostile question accusing me of being a paid actor (ridiculous, my account is 8 years old) posting things that would be a "crime" in other countries. People down-voting this should check the irony considering they're upset at the President for censorship.

[badsock]

You were incorrect and you admitted it, which is good, but then you immediately move the goalposts and then use that to pretend that you were justified in your original assertation.

That's a shady rhetorical technique, and I suspect you're arguing in bad faith. That's worth some downvotes.

[3131s]

Wait, were they incorrect?

My interpretation was that GP meant that Obama did the same thing (firing existing politically appointed ambassadors) and then in addition filled the positions with people who had donated to his campaign (hence not the "exact same thing", but worse).

I really don't know the facts here, but my cursory reading of the Wapo article does seem to suggest that Obama did essentially the same thing in 2008. Or am I missing something?

[jack9]

> You were incorrect and you admitted it, which is good

Ironically, you are incorrect and have strangely doubled down on it in some sort of pyrrhic victory dance of failure.

[scrollaway]

badsock has posted exactly once in this entire thread.

Give your fellow HNers the benefit of the doubt.

[true_religion]

It surprised me too. I thought he was the original poster, but the original commenter was 'jquery'.

[wfunction]

My understanding was that the problem wasn't their termination, which every president does, but the fact that he denied them any sorts of extensions. Am I incorrect? See this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/us/politics/trump-ambassa...

[Vivtek]

Ambassadorships for campaign contributors! Goodness, the base corruption of such a President!

Good thing Mr. Trump would never do that kind of thing, like with the Department of Education or something.

[3131s]

It is corruption if a president lets campaign contributions influence their choice of appointees to political positions. Whether or not Obama did that is another discussion, but just because Trump will do the same, we should not hold any other president to a lesser standard.

[facetube]

Then you agree that Donald Trump is corrupt?

[3131s]

I actually edited out a long addendum to my comment above shortly after posting it. I guess I should have kept it because it addressed what I felt was the implicit assumption of the comment I replied to, and the less subtle assumption of your comment -- that because someone is criticizing a Democrat that they must be a Republican or Trump supporter. While statistically that may even be likely, you should withhold judgment at least until that person says something false or frames the discussion in a biased way.

I can't tell you how many times both online and in real life that people have made that assumption about me when I've criticized Obama, Clinton or other Democrats, or vice-versa when I've criticized Trump. I can assure you that I detest Donald Trump too.

[Vivtek]

Ah. Point taken, then (I did apparently need this addendum, ha). I did make this sloppy assumption.

I do have a significant D bias. Obama was by no means a perfect president - I mean, my God, I have a long list - but Trump, as far as I can see, doesn't even know what "President" means. There are loads of Republicans who I think would have done a fine job. I liked Romney, I think Kasich would have done OK, etc.

That said, an ambassadorship is normally given as a sop, isn't it? It doesn't alarm me in the slightest that Obama may have "literally auctioned off" ambassadorships - because I don't see the harm done and, as I say, I was under the impression that this was business as usual.

But you have to see that calling out possible corruption in the Obama administration (which, as I said, doesn't appear to have harmed us in any way that I know of) in the present context is ... well, it looks like carrying water for what appears to be shaping up to be quite literally the most corrupt administration America has ever suffered.

[whyileft]

You did not answer my question. I expect an answer.

Why would you intentionally attempt to misinform your fellow citizens?

[beaner]

Honestly as a bystander to this conversation it seems like an easy enough mistake to make. The presidents did the same thing but at different times... Doesn't seem like a big deal. Doesn't nearly seem like enough evidence for "intentional attempt to misinform."

As someone who may be influenced by this discussion I am way more interested in why you think his point about nominating donors is not significant enough to discuss. Isn't that a sort of misinformation by non-acknowledgment?

[garrettgrimsley]

Making negative assumptions about the intentions of the poster is not conducive to civil discourse.

[ams6110]

Your expectations aren't compelling on anyone else.