harvey19 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Noticed that yes. Said that she was betraying him and was "soft on borders". That's not the sort of language you expect - that's marginalising and making them to be either for Trump or the enemy This is getting worrying very fast. Ignore the checks and balances and you will get a dictatorship - if Trump really is that willing to ignore the courts then it's going to be interesting when someone impeaches him which is an almost dead certaintly now. It is very worrying if I am correct in thinking a subordinate told organisations to ignore an order from her superior. If she felt she could not carry out an order why didn't she just resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Noticed that yes. if Trump really is that willing to ignore the courts then it's going to be interesting when someone impeaches him which is an almost dead certaintly now. I know it's kind of regrettable, but being a really really rubbish president, isn't grounds for impeachment. They have to commit "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" for the impeachment process to kick in. Somebody not having a clue about anything, isn't enough. The Founding Fathers didn't envisage a absolute total idiot making it through the very vigorous selection process that gets presidents elected in the first place, so therefore they didn't make that one of the impeachment criteria. nope, it looks to me more like the 25th Amendment where everyone around him decides that the president is a total lunatic that is the likelier way to get rid of Trump than impeachment is, and if that does happen, it will be the best reality television show ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 It is very worrying if I am correct in thinking a subordinate told organisations to ignore an order from her superior. If she felt she could not carry out an order why didn't she just resign. As I read it her job is to answer not to the president, but to "the constitution". I'm not entirely sure what that means in practice, but some are claiming it means she is not allowed (and its specifically part of her job not to) to obey an illegal order from the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) It is very worrying if I am correct in thinking a subordinate told organisations to ignore an order from her superior. If she felt she could not carry out an order why didn't she just resign. You are incorrect. As the Attorney General specifically, her duty was to the US Constitution and the rule of law, not to the President. The EO was not for her carry out at all, but to advise the President about its legality (before it was signed - which Trump, as we all know, didn't do). It is likewise because of her duty that she had to tell executive organisations governed by the EO about its illegality. Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that there is no system, however democratic and meritocratic, in which I'd expect a subordinate to survive telling his or her boss to, in a nutshell, GFY. All the same, Trump fired her for doing her job. I know it's kind of regrettable, but being a really really rubbish president, isn't grounds for impeachment. They have to commit "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" for the impeachment process to kick in. Somebody not having a clue about anything, isn't enough. The Founding Fathers didn't envisage a absolute total idiot making it through the very vigorous selection process that gets presidents elected in the first place, so therefore they didn't make that one of the impeachment criteria. Methinks there's a lot of digging ongoing atm, jointly about Putin's involvement in the US campaign and about those mysteriously-transferred 19.5% Rosneft shares Edited January 31, 2017 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Its only 90 days, thats nothing. What do they have to hide if they are complaining ? Great idea, then those who are allowed entry can hold their heads high, as a proud muslim and less strereotyping and hatred towards them. And you're not the one trapped in an airport or one now classed as a criminal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I was watching the BBC news doing vox pops with Americans supportive of Trump`s immigration / anti terrorist policies, and I felt like throwing stuff at the TV. These thicko Yanks were spouting off about protecting US citizens from danger ( = foreign terrorists), yet the BBC reporter didn`t ask them the ovious follow up question ! : Are you not more concerned that far more people in the USA are shot by deranged (American) gunmen ? There are two further ironies to this. I`m willing to bet that most of those supporting these Trump immigration policies are the same people who are NOT in favour of gun control. The final irony being they say we need guns to protect us from the gunmen. Fine, so if they`ve already got the guns to protect them from (very rare) terrorists attacks, why do they feel they need xenophobic border controls ? I always though Americans, many of them anyway, were thick, now I know it for certain..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexo Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 it looks to me more like the 25th Amendment where everyone around him decides that the president is a total lunatic that is the likelier way to get rid of Trump than impeachment is, and if that does happen, it will be the best reality television show ever. Trump is specific and dangerous type of lunatic called a malignant narcissist. It's a mental health condition. In short, it means he has no soul. There is no Donald Trump. His soul is dead, usually as a result of a childhood trauma. Instead there is an image of a Donald Trump that he has invented. The most important thing to him is getting people to believe that image. A malignant narcissist cannot cope or comprehend criticism or anything that threatens that image. President Trump exhibits classic signs of mental illness, including 'malignant narcissism,' shrinks say This about Trump's malignant narcissism by a British psychologist is easy to watch. Let's diagnose Trump! Here are the 9 indicators of malignant narcissism. The American Psychiatric Association says that anyone exhibiting five of them has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. How many does Trump have? 1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements). 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love. 3. Believe that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with other special or high-status people. 4. Requires excessive admiration. 5. Has a sense of entitlement. 6. Is interpersonally exploitative. 7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. 8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her. 9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 It is very worrying if I am correct in thinking a subordinate told organisations to ignore an order from her superior. If she felt she could not carry out an order why didn't she just resign. She swore an oath to the Constitution. Not to the President. It's her job to point out where the administration errs in matters of law - not to kowtow to their every whim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 It is very worrying if I am correct in thinking a subordinate told organisations to ignore an order from her superior. If she felt she could not carry out an order why didn't she just resign. Not really. She's a judge. Her job is to ensure the law is followed. In her opinion the law was not being followed so she has been sacked for doing her job. It's that that is worrying. ---------- Post added 31-01-2017 at 13:16 ---------- Its only 90 days, thats nothing. What do they have to hide if they are complaining ? Great idea, then those who are allowed entry can hold their heads high, as a proud muslim and less strereotyping and hatred towards them. Some of the people who are being blocked from entering the US has family, jobs, cars and houses there. How would you feel if upon returning from Benidorm a law has been 'passed' blocking you from returning to your HOME?!?! Might you just be a little narked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Not really. She's a judge. Her job is to ensure the law is followed. In her opinion the law was not being followed so she has been sacked for doing her job. It's that that is worrying. ---------- Post added 31-01-2017 at 13:16 ---------- Some of the people who are being blocked from entering the US has family, jobs, cars and houses there. How would you feel if upon returning from Benidorm a law has been 'passed' blocking you from returning to your HOME?!?! Might you just be a little narked? Why were the 107 approx people out of 320,000approx stopped ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now