Trump just fired the acting Attorney General

[untermensche]

There's nothing controversial about this. It's what happens when you don't do your job. She should have resigned if she felt that strongly about it.

Her job is to stand up to capricious tyranny.

There is no special threat posed by these refugees.

It is pure and ugly prejudice and ignorance.

That is the side you are on.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I applaud her for standing up for what is right. Then again we need people on the inside. She didn't really have to defend the government, just go through some motions.

Why didn't anyone oppose Obama in 2011 for his 6 month pause on people fleeing Syria?

 

[bilby]

I applaud her for standing up for what is right. Then again we need people on the inside. She didn't really have to defend the government, just go through some motions.

Why didn't anyone oppose Obama in 2011 for his 6 month pause on people fleeing Syria?

Some did.

But not many, because his actions then were a reasoned response to a clear and specific threat. And were nothing like the current situation of irrational and ill-considered actions provoked only by the President's bigotry, in which the only thought that appears to have been used to temper the madness was to ensure no harm was done to Trump's business interests.

Of course, you have no excuse not to know this, as it has already been made clear up thread. But I almost admire your persistence in clinging to this false equivalence even after everyone else has seen through it.

If only you could channel that sticktoitiveness into a less futile cause, you might even aspire to be dangerous; or at least competent.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why didn't anyone oppose Obama in 2011 for his 6 month pause on people fleeing Syria?

Some did.

But not many, because his actions then were a reasoned response to a clear and specific threat. And were nothing like the current situation of irrational and ill-considered actions provoked only by the President's bigotry, in which the only thought that appears to have been used to temper the madness was to ensure no harm was done to Trump's business interests.

Of course, you have no excuse not to know this, as it has already been made clear up thread. But I almost admire your persistence in clinging to this false equivalence even after everyone else has seen through it.

If only you could channel that sticktoitiveness into a less futile cause, you might even aspire to be dangerous; or at least competent.

There is a threat. ISIS has already said it wishes to let its fighers enter the US and EU. There is nothing like acting proactively since Europe has experienced attacks.

 

[untermensche]

I applaud her for standing up for what is right. Then again we need people on the inside. She didn't really have to defend the government, just go through some motions.

Why didn't anyone oppose Obama in 2011 for his 6 month pause on people fleeing Syria?

What facts was this pause based on?

This order from Trump is just something pulled from his ass. There are no facts to support it. No recommendations for it from anyone except Trump's inner circle.

 

[bilby]

Some did.

But not many, because his actions then were a reasoned response to a clear and specific threat. And were nothing like the current situation of irrational and ill-considered actions provoked only by the President's bigotry, in which the only thought that appears to have been used to temper the madness was to ensure no harm was done to Trump's business interests.

Of course, you have no excuse not to know this, as it has already been made clear up thread. But I almost admire your persistence in clinging to this false equivalence even after everyone else has seen through it.

If only you could channel that sticktoitiveness into a less futile cause, you might even aspire to be dangerous; or at least competent.

There is a threat. ISIS has already said it wishes to let its fighers enter the US and EU. There is nothing like acting proactively since Europe has experienced attacks.

I am a little surprised that someone who is so keen on dictionary definitions is not aware of the meaning of the words "clear" and "specific".

 

[Axulus]

I've become desensitized to the word "unprecedented," though. It's been used so much to describe this election and this disastrous presidency that it's lost all effect. There's really no precedent to turn to in Trump's case, because he's done basically everything that should disqualify someone from being president and people still fucking voted for him. Those people will realize, eventually, what a mistake they made, but there's no telling how long that could take. And before they do, I'm not sure what kind of pressure would need to be brought to bear to get him the fuck out.

I'm not sure at all. There were still plenty of Germans who kept on supporting Hitler, even whilst their country was being razed to the ground, millions of their compatriots were dead and they were fighting a war they never could win.

Check this video from 1943: Wollt er den totalen Krieg?

Such people never learn.

And yet Germany is today the strongest economy and the lynch pin of fhe EU. There appears to be an inevitable mass of people that can only be convinced by brute reality of horrible experience, where reasoned argument will not work. Things will have to get horrible before they can get better as the last generation to experience such horrors is dying off. There appears to be some sort of inevitability to horror before the populace can be cleansed of really stupid ideas, which then immunizes them again for a couple generations, only to eventually having the new generations lacking that immunity, needing to experience that horror once again to regain that immunity.

Venezuela is going through their cleansing right now. China has been out of their cleansing for about one generation and are doing OK for the time being. Europe hasn't had a cleansing for a few generations and seem to be back on a path to a new cleansing. It seems to be an unavoidable part of history.

The biggest wild card today, however, is nuclear weapons. We will soon be entering a phase where the generation in charge of the nukes never experienced a cleansing. It is anyone's guess as to what the result of that will be.

 

[fast]

There's nothing controversial about this. It's what happens when you don't do your job. She should have resigned if she felt that strongly about it.

She did do her job. It's to uphold the law, not to blindly follow illegal orders from power-hungry dickheads who have no regard for it whatsoever.

Hmmm, and here I was thinking her dereliction of duty was tantamount to treason. Things get murky sometimes and what appears right is wrong and what appears wrong is right. Legal duty is so confusing sometimes.

 

[TV and credit cards]

She did do her job. It's to uphold the law, not to blindly follow illegal orders from power-hungry dickheads who have no regard for it whatsoever.

Hmmm, and here I was thinking her dereliction of duty was tantamount to treason. Things get murky sometimes and what appears right is wrong and what appears wrong is right. Legal duty is so confusing sometimes.

Nothing murky about it. Her first duty is to uphold the Constitution not to follow orders. "I was just following orders" isn't going to hold up in court.

 

[untermensche]

She did do her job. It's to uphold the law, not to blindly follow illegal orders from power-hungry dickheads who have no regard for it whatsoever.

Hmmm, and here I was thinking her dereliction of duty was tantamount to treason. Things get murky sometimes and what appears right is wrong and what appears wrong is right. Legal duty is so confusing sometimes.

You can call putting the law before some dictate pulled from a madman's ass dereliction if you want.

It merely shows you do not stand for the rule of law but for the rule of one idiot.

What facts made this ban needed?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The AG's job is to uphold and defend the constituition, not twist it to her elected, superior's whims.

According to the Justice Department web page, her duties include:

• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

It doesn't say anything about deciding which law/order is Constitutional. That's the court's job.

That being said, it might have worked better if she'd just "taken a dive" when she defended the order in court.

 

[fast]

Hmmm, and here I was thinking her dereliction of duty was tantamount to treason. Things get murky sometimes and what appears right is wrong and what appears wrong is right. Legal duty is so confusing sometimes.

You can call putting the law before some dictate pulled from a madman's ass dereliction if you want.

It merely shows you do not stand for the rule of law but for the rule of one idiot.

What facts made this ban needed?

Look dude, I caught a glimpse of Fox News, and in very short order, they educated me. Had you put forth the same due diligence, you wouldn't be spouting your myopic nonsense.

 

[Elixir]

Some did.

But not many, because his actions then were a reasoned response to a clear and specific threat. And were nothing like the current situation of irrational and ill-considered actions provoked only by the President's bigotry, in which the only thought that appears to have been used to temper the madness was to ensure no harm was done to Trump's business interests.

Of course, you have no excuse not to know this, as it has already been made clear up thread. But I almost admire your persistence in clinging to this false equivalence even after everyone else has seen through it.

If only you could channel that sticktoitiveness into a less futile cause, you might even aspire to be dangerous; or at least competent.

There is a threat.

Yeah, but not so much of a threat as say, cows or coconuts, statistically speaking.
Be afraid, WP, be VERY afraid!! That's what your mindless orange puppet wants!

 

[credoconsolans]

The AG's job is to uphold and defend the constituition, not twist it to her elected, superior's whims.

According to the Justice Department web page, her duties include:

• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

It doesn't say anything about deciding which law/order is Constitutional. That's the court's job.

That being said, it might have worked better if she'd just "taken a dive" when she defended the order in court.

I think the AG also takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And since she's a lawyer, she's also the one to make the decision on whether an order is even legally defensible. If it isn't, she is under no obligation to support it. Legally.

 

[ZiprHead]

According to the Justice Department web page, her duties include:

• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

It doesn't say anything about deciding which law/order is Constitutional. That's the court's job.

That being said, it might have worked better if she'd just "taken a dive" when she defended the order in court.

I think the AG also takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And since she's a lawyer, she's also the one to make the decision on whether an order is even legally defensible. If it isn't, she is under no obligation to support it. Legally.

"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God."

Q: Law- sworn oath of office transcript for US Attorney General

 

[whichphilosophy]

There's nothing controversial about this. It's what happens when you don't do your job. She should have resigned if she felt that strongly about it.

She did do her job. It's to uphold the law, not to blindly follow illegal orders from power-hungry dickheads who have no regard for it whatsoever.

Her interpretation of the Law. There is nothing illegal about refusing entry into the USA. The contraversy is preventing people who already have visas and green cards

 

[whichphilosophy]

There is a threat.

Yeah, but not so much of a threat as say, cows or coconuts, statistically speaking.
Be afraid, WP, be VERY afraid!! That's what your mindless orange puppet wants!

So no security checks and anyone from anywhere?

 

[untermensche]

You can call putting the law before some dictate pulled from a madman's ass dereliction if you want.

It merely shows you do not stand for the rule of law but for the rule of one idiot.

What facts made this ban needed?

Look dude, I caught a glimpse of Fox News, and in very short order, they educated me. Had you put forth the same due diligence, you wouldn't be spouting your myopic nonsense.

Yes I know.

FOX NEWS:

Dirty Muslims very scary. Ban them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, but not so much of a threat as say, cows or coconuts, statistically speaking.
Be afraid, WP, be VERY afraid!! That's what your mindless orange puppet wants!

So no security checks and anyone from anywhere?

We call that the False Dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This was the correct action. She felt that the order wasn't a legal one and couldn't countenance having her people enforce it. Trump felt that she was disobeying a lawful order, so he fired her for it. This is what is supposed to happen. Trump sets the policy for the executive branch of the US government and if you can't support those policies, you say no and lose your job. It's a case study for the future when somebody says that they were just following orders and it can clearly be pointed out that they did, in fact, have another option available to them.