|
Post by busy on Jan 31, 2017 5:16:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jan 31, 2017 5:23:49 GMT
Elise, it's simply a tactic to shut you down from stating *your* opinion since it is not in line with the so-called "acceptable" opinion. Is that you, Kellyann? Tactic? "Acceptable" opinion? I thought Elise and I were just having a difference of opinion. You know, like in true Two Peas Refugees fashion, a part of the lexicon, and an honored tradition since our inception. Somehow, I don't think she needs you to defend her. She stands up for herself quite nicely.
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 31, 2017 5:32:24 GMT
This is... magnificent.
|
|
|
Post by friendly on Jan 31, 2017 5:39:35 GMT
And, here, rebel, we find common ground. As much as she should shown some common courtesy and diplomacy and not hung her boss out to dry, HE should have shut his mouth and no issued that press release. It is beneath him. Her firing and any discussion from the White House really should have been handled by Mr. Spicer or someone like that. He is the President. It is up to him to act like it. So yes, I do not defend the press release. But there is no question that ANY president would have fired any of his cabinet who acted as she did. HE IS NOT HER BOSS!!! She is not a member of his cabinet. I'm yelling because you do not seem to understand that the judicial branch is not the employee of the President. That department exists as a check and balance to the executive branch. She was entirely within her rights to speak out, and even worse, I'm getting overtones from your posts on this thread that she did not behave in a ladylike manner or some similar bullshit meant to SHAME a woman who has the temerity to speak out against a man. Welcome to the 21st century. Yes, you are a lovely, nice Pea, but you are clueless!
|
|
|
Post by friendly on Jan 31, 2017 5:40:44 GMT
Shameful and the beginning of the end of the United States of America as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jan 31, 2017 5:48:19 GMT
And, here, rebel, we find common ground. As much as she should shown some common courtesy and diplomacy and not hung her boss out to dry, HE should have shut his mouth and no issued that press release. It is beneath him. Her firing and any discussion from the White House really should have been handled by Mr. Spicer or someone like that. He is the President. It is up to him to act like it. So yes, I do not defend the press release. But there is no question that ANY president would have fired any of his cabinet who acted as she did. HE IS NOT HER BOSS!!! She is not a member of his cabinet. I'm yelling because you do not seem to understand that the judicial branch is not the employee of the President. That department exists as a check and balance to the executive branch. She was entirely within her rights to speak out, and even worse, I'm getting overtones from your posts on this thread that she did not behave in a ladylike manner or some similar bullshit meant to SHAME a woman who has the temerity to speak out against a man. Welcome to the 21st century. Yes, you are a lovely, nice Pea, but you are clueless! Not to be repetitive, but this is not correct. DOJ is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. The AG is a Cabinet member. But of course,, their oath is to support the Constitution, not the president.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jan 31, 2017 5:51:10 GMT
HE IS NOT HER BOSS!!! She is not a member of his cabinet. I'm yelling because you do not seem to understand that the judicial branch is not the employee of the President. That department exists as a check and balance to the executive branch. She was entirely within her rights to speak out, and even worse, I'm getting overtones from your posts on this thread that she did not behave in a ladylike manner or some similar bullshit meant to SHAME a woman who has the temerity to speak out against a man. Welcome to the 21st century. Yes, you are a lovely, nice Pea, but you are clueless! Not to be repetitive, but this is not correct. DOJ is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. The AG is a Cabinet member. But of course,, their oath is to support the Constitution, not the president. Yes, you are right, I am wrong. I apologize to Elise.
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Jan 31, 2017 6:04:20 GMT
if one of Obama's cabinet members had done the same thing you would have felt he/she should have been fired.
Are you capable of trying to make any point WITHOUT mentioning Obama or Hillary? And if you are going to mention them to try to make your point at least restrict it to a same or similar situation that actually happened and not your own fantasy land scenarios. If you find yourself typing "if Obama/Hillary had...then you would have"...stop - because you are about to spout even more bullshit.
Unless Obama did the same or very similar thing while President...you are NOT making a valid point or presenting a valid argument. You can't argue by comparing something that did happen to something that didn't happen and you can't speculate what anyone here would have said about the thing that didn't happen.
Imagine if we all did that? Then I could claim: "well if Trump had lost you know full well Elise that you'd be here starting 5 posts a day complaining about what Hillary was doing" It's just total nonsense. Did Obama ever fire the AT? No? then keep quiet about *what if* and Obama and stick to the point at hand and what Trump actually is or isn't doing.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,160
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Jan 31, 2017 6:11:56 GMT
And, here, rebel, we find common ground. As much as she should shown some common courtesy and diplomacy and not hung her boss out to dry, HE should have shut his mouth and no issued that press release. It is beneath him. Her firing and any discussion from the White House really should have been handled by Mr. Spicer or someone like that. He is the President. It is up to him to act like it. So yes, I do not defend the press release. But there is no question that ANY president would have fired any of his cabinet who acted as she did. HE IS NOT HER BOSS!!! She is not a member of his cabinet. I'm yelling because you do not seem to understand that the judicial branch is not the employee of the President. That department exists as a check and balance to the executive branch. She was entirely within her rights to speak out, and even worse, I'm getting overtones from your posts on this thread that she did not behave in a ladylike manner or some similar bullshit meant to SHAME a woman who has the temerity to speak out against a man. Welcome to the 21st century. Yes, you are a lovely, nice Pea, but you are clueless! Established in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Cabinet's role is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of each member's respective office. The tradition of the Cabinet dates back to the beginnings of the Presidency itself. Established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, the Cabinet's role is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of each member's respective office. The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General.
|
|
|
Post by snowsilver on Jan 31, 2017 6:12:17 GMT
Not to be repetitive, but this is not correct. DOJ is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. The AG is a Cabinet member. But of course,, their oath is to support the Constitution, not the president. Yes, you are right, I am wrong. I apologize to Elise. We're all good, peano
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,375
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jan 31, 2017 7:10:56 GMT
You know guys, honestly I don't understand the upset here. Of COURSE he fired her. He had to. She publicly defied an order of the Constitutionally elected President of the United States--her BOSS. I think a lot of us on the right would be more impressed with some of the left's arguments if there were a little more balance here. ANY president worth his salt would have done exactly what Trump did here. At first I was outraged. Digging deeper, I came to the same conclusion as snowsilver. We we had a court case between the province and the teachers' union. Went all the way to the Supreme Court. The government did ultimately lose. Just as both sides had a right to appeal, the WH has a right to expect that if it wants to appeal, the AG/Acting AG shouldn't essentially be telling the DOJ 'Oh just ignore him. She should certainly tell Trump he's likely to lose. But if he says, 'Don't care. Worth the risk," then she needs to do her job or resign. The right to appeal is one of the tenets of the rule of law.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,375
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jan 31, 2017 7:46:01 GMT
Now as I read beyond I'm confused again.
In the video clip she says 'Independent legal advice. (Emphasis mine).
While it's wise to take the advice of your lawyer, is it truly mandatory? Wouldn't the right response to be more like, Fine. But I don't think you can win.
The letter is reprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jan 31, 2017 7:50:03 GMT
You know guys, honestly I don't understand the upset here. Of COURSE he fired her. He had to. She publicly defied an order of the Constitutionally elected President of the United States--her BOSS. I think a lot of us on the right would be more impressed with some of the left's arguments if there were a little more balance here. ANY president worth his salt would have done exactly what Trump did here. She found what he ordered was unconstitutional. I would think she should have more allegiance to the Constitution than to Trump. So anybody that that does not hold up an order from Trump will be removed from office until he has scared/strong-armed everyone around him to do what he says, constitution be damned? That is is another reason he is getting Hitler comparisons. no, it isn't unconstitutional. she just didn't agree with it. not up to her to refuse to defend it.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jan 31, 2017 7:54:10 GMT
It would be a violation of her oath as Attorney General to approach Trump to discuss the case. She is not the Presidents Attorney but the Attorney for the United States. Again Separation of Powers. And she is (was) the Attorney of record of at the time. This case is already pending in the many Courts, and she had to take a stand. I don't see it as grandstanding. I see it as someone who is upholding the principals of the law. Yates could of delayed until the new AG is sworn in, but there is no guarantee right now how soon that will happen, and I applaud that she wasn't delaying her action, to see how things fall (as a Politician would). I must have missed all of those angry threads here when Holder was AG under dbo... and his replacement... and they did his every bidding...
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jan 31, 2017 8:09:53 GMT
if one of Obama's cabinet members had done the same thing you would have felt he/she should have been fired.
Are you capable of trying to make any point WITHOUT mentioning Obama or Hillary? And if you are going to mention them to try to make your point at least restrict it to a same or similar situation that actually happened and not your own fantasy land scenarios. If you find yourself typing "if Obama/Hillary had...then you would have"...stop - because you are about to spout even more bullshit.
Unless Obama did the same or very similar thing while President...you are NOT making a valid point or presenting a valid argument. You can't argue by comparing something that did happen to something that didn't happen and you can't speculate what anyone here would have said about the thing that didn't happen.
Imagine if we all did that? Then I could claim: "well if Trump had lost you know full well Elise that you'd be here starting 5 posts a day complaining about what Hillary was doing" It's just total nonsense. Did Obama ever fire the AT? No? then keep quiet about *what if* and Obama and stick to the point at hand and what Trump actually is or isn't doing.
ok. then what's the fuss? dbo DID EOs to stop immigration of refugees from Iraq while he was in the WH. for 6 months. he did that several times.
where was your outrage then? he didn't call anyone to protest his EO?
dbo 'fired' a number of top people - they just 'suddenly' took retirement ... we lost a lot of generals that way. they didn't agree with him - and they were out. Gnrl Hamm was one...
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jan 31, 2017 8:29:19 GMT
Constitutional experts on TV have stated Trump had the option of appointing a special attorney to handle the cases. It leaves the country with no one able to sign the secret warrants in terrorism cases ( the signee must have senate confirmation)
Spicer dissed state department employees that used an established process to register descent in place since the Vietnam War stating they should get in line or leave. This violates state department policy against retaliation of dissent. no, it does not. there are a good number of people in the DOJ who ARE senate confirmed!
you could cut these threads in half if you would just get the correct info on whatever upheaval you think is taking place. but you all do not. you jump on in a rage and post away with info that isn't true.
good thing you all aren't working in the WH, DOJ etc. maybe anywhere...
of course, that be against your agenda of hate DT. and wouldn't cause others on your side to take your wrong info and repeat in (start the telephone game).
the things I've heard on tv shows from 'guests' who are on the left - many who are involved in the protests. the stuff they're spewing out there is so far from true. maybe they read it here? or on some activist site hiring protestors.
what dt did is not illegal. the judge did not rule against the whole of the EO. only that those with right ID/green cards etc couldn't be forced to leave. they wouldn't have been anyway. but they needed to show proof to those at the airport. that took some time. from what I've heard they weren't very prepared at the airport. probably someone in charge (like the acting AG) who didn't want to enforce it and so didn't inform those doing that job.
and I read the 'call to arms/protest' at the airport was put out by Michael moore's activist group.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jan 31, 2017 8:34:29 GMT
You know guys, honestly I don't understand the upset here. Of COURSE he fired her. He had to. She publicly defied an order of the Constitutionally elected President of the United States--her BOSS. I think a lot of us on the right would be more impressed with some of the left's arguments if there were a little more balance here. ANY president worth his salt would have done exactly what Trump did here. At first I was outraged. Digging deeper, I came to the same conclusion as snowsilver . We we had a court case between the province and the teachers' union. Went all the way to the Supreme Court. The government did ultimately lose. Just as both sides had a right to appeal , the WH has a right to expect that if it wants to appeal, the AG/Acting AG shouldn't essentially be telling the DOJ 'Oh just ignore him. She should certainly tell Trump he's likely to lose. But if he says, 'Don't care. Worth the risk," then she needs to do her job or resign.
The right to appeal is one of the tenets of the rule of law. that would have been the right way to go. if it offended her that much, she should have stepped down - it's only a short period for her in that position anyway. she made it shorter... or held her mouth and passed it on to those who would actually be doing the work on it.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 31, 2017 11:16:02 GMT
Elise, it's simply a tactic to shut you down from stating *your* opinion since it is not in line with the so-called "acceptable" opinion. Is that you, Kellyann? Tactic? "Acceptable" opinion? I thought Elise and I were just having a difference of opinion. You know, like in true Two Peas Refugees fashion, a part of the lexicon, and an honored tradition since our inception. Somehow, I don't think she needs you to defend her. She stands up for herself quite nicely. Exactly. Lauren uses that "shut down tactic" when others provide facts and their opinion because she thinks hers is always the right one.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 31, 2017 11:38:22 GMT
The AG is supposed to defend the Constitution, not the President so I'm not sure exactly what balance you want the left to have here. At what point, do you suppose, are those on the right going to come to their senses and realize that this man is behaving like an authoritarian in a third world country and not like the leader of the free world? What exactly WILL it take? If any other president did 1/10 of what he's done, there'd be uproar from everyone. I truly cannot understand how he's getting away with all of it. Of course, I said the same thing time after time with all of the crap he pulled during the election season, too. He gives a new definition to Teflon president. This is just my opinion, but I feel like a large percent of the people who voted for him cannot question anything he does because then they'd feel like they were admitting they were wrong. It's like the teenage girl who knows her boyfriend is a louse, but she won't break up with him because then she'd be admitting that her parents and friends were right. So, instead she stays in a bad relationship. She's hurting herself just to keep her pride intact. That's a dangerous position to hold. This is a very apt description of what appears to be happening right now.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 31, 2017 11:41:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by terri on Jan 31, 2017 11:43:12 GMT
The AG serves at the will of the President but their obligation is to the Constitution. Her oath is to uphold the laws of the country, not enforce executive orders she believes are unconstitutional.
I have no clue how to link but there is a link on CNN to Yates confirmation hearing where Sessions emphasizes this point to Yates. In my opinion she did her job by trying to protect the Constitution and Sessions should not be confirmed until he responds to the Senate what he would have done in this case.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 31, 2017 11:47:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Jan 31, 2017 12:04:29 GMT
Yes, you are right, I am wrong. I apologize to Elise. We're all good, peano Very, very classy! Well done to all involved in this exchange. This is how it can be around here and with a few exceptions I am starting to see real exchanges of opinions. I am learning a bit more about your system, checks and balances and so on as we go along. Thanks, peas.
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Jan 31, 2017 12:12:29 GMT
Is that you, Kellyann? Tactic? "Acceptable" opinion? I thought Elise and I were just having a difference of opinion. You know, like in true Two Peas Refugees fashion, a part of the lexicon, and an honored tradition since our inception. Somehow, I don't think she needs you to defend her. She stands up for herself quite nicely. Exactly. Lauren uses that "shut down tactic" when others provide facts and their opinion because she thinks hers is always the right one. Yes! Two other old chestnuts that apply here: "We teach best what we most need to learn" and "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jan 31, 2017 12:19:31 GMT
You know guys, honestly I don't understand the upset here. Of COURSE he fired her. He had to. She publicly defied an order of the Constitutionally elected President of the United States--her BOSS. I think a lot of us on the right would be more impressed with some of the left's arguments if there were a little more balance here. ANY president worth his salt would have done exactly what Trump did here. Her job is to uphold the Constitution. The way checks and balance work is that the President has someone checking him so that they don't exercise too much power. She did her job. The last President to fire an Attorney General... Nixon. So I would be more impressed if those of you on the right didn't blindly agree with everything he is doing.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jan 31, 2017 12:20:32 GMT
And for his letter to mention her being weak is just a fucking dick move. He is insane. It perfectly illustrates how everything is personal with him.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 13:48:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 12:26:13 GMT
Constitutional experts on TV have stated Trump had the option of appointing a special attorney to handle the cases. It leaves the country with no one able to sign the secret warrants in terrorism cases ( the signee must have senate confirmation)
Spicer dissed state department employees that used an established process to register descent in place since the Vietnam War stating they should get in line or leave. This violates state department policy against retaliation of dissent. no, it does not. there are a good number of people in the DOJ who ARE senate confirmed!
you could cut these threads in half if you would just get the correct info on whatever upheaval you think is taking place. but you all do not. you jump on in a rage and post away with info that isn't true.
good thing you all aren't working in the WH, DOJ etc. maybe anywhere...
of course, that be against your agenda of hate DT. and wouldn't cause others on your side to take your wrong info and repeat in (start the telephone game).
the things I've heard on tv shows from 'guests' who are on the left - many who are involved in the protests. the stuff they're spewing out there is so far from true. maybe they read it here? or on some activist site hiring protestors.
what dt did is not illegal. the judge did not rule against the whole of the EO. only that those with right ID/green cards etc couldn't be forced to leave. they wouldn't have been anyway. but they needed to show proof to those at the airport. that took some time. from what I've heard they weren't very prepared at the airport. probably someone in charge (like the acting AG) who didn't want to enforce it and so didn't inform those doing that job.
and I read the 'call to arms/protest' at the airport was put out by Michael moore's activist group.
OT, but I predict Michael Moore is working on a new documentary hence his face all over the news, at these protests, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jan 31, 2017 15:28:50 GMT
The first misstep was to issue a substantive executive order without your own attorney general (not to mention the other cabinet members impacted) in place. The whole freaking point of the cabinet is to advice the president. Was Yates going to ultimately be replaced - of course - she's a holdover of the previous administration and was only asked to stay on until the new attorney general was confirmed primarily so there was no disruption in the ability to sign foreign surveillance warrants. Perhaps if Trump had received advice from his attorney general - he wouldn't have issued an executive order that also applied to green card holders and individuals with a valid work or student visa.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 13:48:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 15:37:23 GMT
You know guys, honestly I don't understand the upset here. Of COURSE he fired her. He had to. She publicly defied an order of the Constitutionally elected President of the United States--her BOSS. I think a lot of us on the right would be more impressed with some of the left's arguments if there were a little more balance here. ANY president worth his salt would have done exactly what Trump did here.
|
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,333
Jun 27, 2014 12:39:18 GMT
|
Post by amom23 on Jan 31, 2017 15:43:18 GMT
You know guys, honestly I don't understand the upset here. Of COURSE he fired her. He had to. She publicly defied an order of the Constitutionally elected President of the United States--her BOSS. I think a lot of us on the right would be more impressed with some of the left's arguments if there were a little more balance here. ANY president worth his salt would have done exactly what Trump did here. You are wrong and need to go back and read through the post to understand why.
|
|