Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One could also say "I love Trump unconditionally and hold him to nothing resembling a traditional standard". I believe that's a more common sentiment around these parts.
Logical fallacy. You attempt to equate a true statement to a false one. In this case, WaPo lied about the Commander being fired.
This is what North Beach Person posted twice in the other thread, but nobody was paying any attention because they were too busy bashing Trump.
I could have said it a thousand times and it wouldn't have mattered, they had the assigned "Theme of the Day" firmly entrenched on their To Do lists and nothing was going to get in their ways.
I should have learned by now not to get into a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.
Gotta get my goose hunting stuff ready for tomorrow.
One could also say "I love Trump unconditionally and hold him to nothing resembling a traditional standard". I believe that's a more common sentiment around these parts.
Look at the thread titles and tell me which one is the more common sentiment.
I could have said it a thousand times and it wouldn't have mattered, they had the assigned "Theme of the Day" firmly entrenched on their To Do lists and nothing was going to get in their ways.
I should have learned by now not to get into a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.
Gotta get my goose hunting stuff ready for tomorrow.
Honestly, not really seeing the fake news. The story was added to but remains substantively unchanged, just more detailed as additional information came to light. The general put his resignation in and it was accepted. In colloquial terms, there's getting fired. The more tentative stuff is the timing and if he was, as reported, told to vacate immediately upon President-elect Trump becoming President Trump. That seems to be the case as the reported reason he did not accept the offer to stay on was because he thought it was made only after criticism of the timing of his firing came out. Maybe the transition team goofed in what they said and didn't mean literally that they were firing him in advance effective immediately upon Trump officially becoming President. There certainly seems to have been further developments since the article was published and hence it is natural that said developments would likewise be published.
If we take the story at face value. He was notified that his resignation was accepted and they were letting him know in advance that they were firing him the moment Trump became President. That lead to some speculation about Trump and his transition team by, among others WaPo, questioning why the decision was made to fire a general during the inauguration ceremony where DC national guard has a security role . Then an offer was subsequently made for him to stay on for a time and that they weren't firing him the moment Trump took office, which offer was refused. Effectively at that point then the situation changed from Trump firing him during the inauguration ceremony to him quitting during the inauguration ceremony. Of course, when the WaPo article was written that hadn't yet developed so it wasn't fake news.
I can't really blame the general. If I had a job and they said we're firing you and then later said we're firing you but the timing isn't good for us because some people are being critical of firing you during the middle of an event you have a non-trivial leadership role in putting on so why don't you stay through that so we can fire you later, I'd probably have quit too. The more professional thing would be to stick around but you can only jerk people around so much before they say enough is enough.
Honestly, not really seeing the fake news. The story was added to but remains substantively unchanged, just more detailed as additional information came to light. The general put his resignation in and it was accepted. In colloquial terms, there's getting fired.
I'm assuming you meant That's not There's (not trying to be a grammer cop, I just want to make sure what I am commenting on). No resigning is not the same as being fired. Not even close.
Except the Breitbart story is incredibly misleading, as is their habit. The WaPo story says the same thing it's always said: political appointees submit their resignation, and the incoming administration decides which to accept. The Trump administration chose to let him go in the middle of the inauguration. Nothing is different.
Problem is, he was set to retire months ago and Obama signed to keep him on until exactly 12 noon.
"The Donald" has no authority to re-assign anything until 12 noon on the 20th.
Except the Breitbart story is incredibly misleading, as is their habit. The WaPo story says the same thing it's always said: political appointees submit their resignation, and the incoming administration decides which to accept. The Trump administration chose to let him go in the middle of the inauguration. Nothing is different.
This is true. Upon further reading of the post, it appears that the Trump transition team offered to let him stay on this past Friday afternoon--it wasn't awhile ago.
From today's paper:
Quote:
The transition team for President-elect Donald Trump asked the head of the DC National Guard to remain in command throughout Inauguration Day after media reports that he would leave in the middle of the ceremony created controversy, the Guard said.
Maj Gen Schwartz told the WaPo on Friday that he will be removed from his post immediately after Trump is sworn in as president. That irked at least one DC Council member because Schwarts will have to abandon his post during one of the Guard's most important operations, helping maintain security and order during Washington's highest-profile event.
As customary for presidential appointees, Schwartz had offered his resignation after Trump was elected....He said the Trump transition team ultimately asked him to stay in the job for a few additional days, but only after the report of his departure had been published in the Washington Post on Friday.
Military officials backtracked Saturday from earlier statements indicating that Schwartz had not been asked to stay on by the new administration. One said that he learned he had been mistaken and that additional paperwork that became available Saturday showed that the transition team had, in fact, asked Schwartz to maintain his command for several days into the new presidency. That official did not know when that offer was made. Another senior military official said he believed that the offer came before Friday. Maj. Brian Coward also said the offer from the transition team came Friday afternoon.
Looks to me as if they reported the facts as they emerged.
I'm assuming you meant That's not There's (not trying to be a grammer cop, I just want to make sure what I am commenting on). No resigning is not the same as being fired. Not even close.
Of course it is. It's a quite common way of firing people in positions of power. Resignation is asked for and is provided and accepted. Being asked to resign is being fired. In an institution where it is the custom and practice to submit a resignation to each incoming President, accepting the resignation is being fired. It's a way of doing things other than dramatic "you're fired" lines you might be used to from the Apprentice, but it's still being fired.
Of course it is. It's a quite common way of firing people in positions of power. Resignation is asked for and is provided and accepted. Being asked to resign is being fired. In an institution where it is the custom and practice to submit a resignation to each incoming President, accepting the resignation is being fired. It's a way of doing things other than dramatic "you're fired" lines you might be used to from the Apprentice, but it's still being fired.
The resignation was not asked for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
