Slander is saying something that is untrue. Are you saying that Mattis did not resign? Please cite.
Ugly, well, yeah, but that sums up pretty much everything out of this administration.
Resignation is explicitly not “abandoning his post”. Mattis is not under any contract or law requiring him to remain in that position, nor his is simply fleeing without notice. Although it is disappointing to say the least that one of the few remaining officials who has broad bipartisan support and is not under shadow of corruption is leaving his position, it is also understandable under the circumstances that he would not want to remain associated with the Trump administration or in a role where he cannot effect policy and actions that he can agree with or ethically defend.
Staying in his position and acting in an overtly obstructionist fashion, which is what many people seem to expect of him, would be open insubordination and potentially illegal if he actually countermands direct executive directions or ‘leaks’ information deemed to be secure or explicitly classified in nature. By resigning in this way, Mattis is making it clear that he does not feel that the executive direction being handed down is acceptable, which is giving notice to Congress and the general public to take the legal actions they can do. Petulantly insisting that Mattis should fall upon his sword in some fashion of dubious legality or authority to “stop” Trump from being a dangerously mercurial and infantile leader is ignoring the fact that it is actually the explicit responsibility of Congress to use their power to check such behavior.
Stranger
Abandoning a job is what one does when one leaves a job without resigning or otherwise formally relinquishing it. So while he did resign, he did not abandon his job / post / office.
And since I’m posting, count me among the many who never had much use for him (or anyone serving this administration) in the first place, but is nevertheless disturbed at the resignation as a sign that even the enablers are deserting the sinking ship that is the Trump Administration. Which would be okay if that ship weren’t towing the USA at speed towards an iceberg. Even if the Ship of State sinks, the momentum will carry the country into disaster, and I just don’t think the bandaid of the 2018 elections will make much difference.
What?
It was not an allegation of plagiarism (as already noted). It was a question about the source, since it seemed obvious it wasn’t up-to-date. Next time try updating your talking points before regurgitating them.
I’m saying that “abandoning his post” is not an accurate description of Mattis’ resignation, particularly given his military background and that “abandon his post” is a military phrase with connotations of violating the UCMJ, which Mattis has not done.
ETA: upon reading further, everything that Stranger on a Train said in his post #102
However, unlike an enlisted man, or even most officer positions, he does not need to ask permission to quit. If any of the people that serve under him pull the same thing that he does, then they would be subject to court marshal. He happens to be in a position where he is legally allowed to resign, even if that leaves his post empty.
Agreed that it does not meet the legal standard of abandonment under the UCMJ, but in the colloquial sense of leaving a position without it being filled by a trained and qualified replacement, absolutely.
I don’t know that I think that he should have stuck around to undermine the president, as if nothing else, that sets a very dangerous precedent for future, saner administations. What is more terrifying to me that the military listens to Trump, is the idea that the military does not listen to or respect the civilian government, of which, unfortunately, Trump is the current head.
Mattis may not have had any good options here, with simply leaving being the most palatable of them. Doesn’t make it a good choice, even if it was the best choice, if he disagreed with the legal, but stupid and irresponsible orders that he was given.
OTOH, refusing illegal orders is something that Mattis could and should do while in his position, without having to resign, and I don’t know that I would trust whoever replaces him to have that amount of judgement, should Trump start issuing such directives to the military forces.
For instance, I have no idea if anything like this went down, but say Trump ordered Mattis to deploy troops to Mexico’s border, and shoot anyone who tries to cross. Mattis would point out to Trump at this point that that is illegal, and he would not follow that order. Mattis then leaves, and is replaced by a Trump loyalist, who only says, “How high?”
IMHO, abandoning a job is also when you leave the job without anyone competent to replace you. Whether or not your actions qualify legally as abandonment, the post is left abandoned.
How do you so consistently fail to realize how conspicuously your failed nitpicking of irrelevant details so clearly communicates your failure to address the actual substance of the posts that you invariably fail in your attempt to discredit?
Regarding these two paragraphs, Mattis specifically said:
That’s ridiculous. It is the employer’s responsibility to staff their business, not the employee’s. People who quit their jobs with two weeks’ notice do not “abandon” them, and “vacant” is not the same as “abandoned.”
So many people seem to prefer emotive near-synonyms to accurate words.
Then your allegation of “copypasta” doesn’t make any sense, if the only thing that he is repeating is his own post, and he is only repeating it once.
Copypasta is an accusation of using someone else’s material that is popular enough to be copied many times by many people.
And I’m saying that slander is not an accurate description of RTFirefly’s post.
Both because it is not an untrue defamatory statement spoken with reckless disregard for the truth, at most, it is hyperbolic or is using a term in a colloquial, rather than a legal sense, and also, slander is spoken, not written.
Slander is a legal word with connotations of speaking defamatory statement “with knowledge that it was untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth.”
If you are gonna get on others about using a term in a way that you feel is improper, you should try to use the ones you accuse them with with a touch more care.
Or, some people use words to describe how they feel about something.
If your wife serves you divorce papers, and takes you to court, and dissolves the marriage, when you commiserate to your friend that your wife abandons you, do you expect him to say, that “No, she gave you notice, it is your responsibility to staff your family, people who serve divorce papers are not abandoning you.”
He is leaving a position that is very unlikely to be filled by someone with half the competence, capability, and loyalty to the country.
If we were putting him up for court marshal, then you would have a point. As we are not doing so, as we are simply talking about how we feel about his actions, your point blows by mere pedantry and nitpicking.
Right, I know what he said. But that doesn’t change anything, I’m not sure why you think it would. My concern is not that there is no one with a pulse sitting in the chair labeled SecDef. My concern is that the person in the chair is a Trump lackey who will be not only be willing to dissuade Trump on some of his baser, but legal, impulses, but also be happy to carry out illegal orders.
How about “Abandoned his country?”
I know you agree with Trump’s policies, so you would not agree that someone taking themselves out of the loop of disauding Trump from unwise military action is a bad thing, but would you also call it slander?
Sorry. It wasn’t clear that you were talking about your feelings. You were equating “resigning” with “abandoning” and talking about what was and wasn’t true, so it seemed like you were talking about reality. I stand corrected.
It’s not pedantry and nitpicking to point out you’re using inaccurate and inflammatory language.
Heh, to both of you, it would be inaccurate for either of you to say that I was using any language, as I was not the poster that HD called out for posting ugly and slanderous words.
Either of you have anything to say about HD’s inaccurate use of the word slander to refer to RTF’s post? Nothing about how it isn’t talking about reality, nothing about how it is inflammatory?
Either of you want to correct your notions as to who said what here?
Nope? Yes, you stand corrected.
I agree with Hurricane Ditka about pretty much nothing. But I do find that people here attack his ideas quite unfairly, responding to the individual posts based on his overall track record rather than taking them on their own merits (such as they are). I appreciate having right-wing voices on this board, even ones like him, because otherwise I would never know what those people are thinking, and what I see with regard to HD sometimes amounts to mobbing after the first few posts.
I responded to your post because it was the first to bring up the idea that abandonment and resignation were the same. Nobody else said that.
I don’t think posts on a message board rise to the level of slander OR libel, so yes, I’d characterize that as inaccurate and hyperbolic. But generally I don’t engage with HD other than reading his posts, because it does not seem like anything I have to say would go in.
How about next time you try employing some basic civility, or maybe just keeping your opinions to yourself instead of looking for a way to impute or insult with a deniability that has fooled exactly no one.
Stranger
You want me to just ignore that you posted content with basic factual errors / inaccuracies? That doesn’t seem very much like the “fighting ignorance” way, now does it?
Without the overtly-military phrasing, I don’t think I would have objected to that as strongly.
As for “slander”, from this sentence:
I gather that you understand terms can have a colloquial meaning different from the strict legal definition, so I’m not sure what else I could explain to you on the subject.