RE: Trump sacks acting AG
February 1, 2017 at 10:47 am
(This post was last modified: February 1, 2017 at 10:49 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 1, 2017 at 5:23 am)A Theist Wrote:(February 1, 2017 at 4:18 am)robvalue Wrote: Whether or not Trump is allowed to fire people in general is not the issue. It's the reasons behind it. Firing people because they disagree with you is just the actions of a dictator. Surely that's not acceptable, legally or morally.Trump being allowed to fire people in general "is" the issue. The reasons behind it doesn't matter. You don't like it, but he's the president. Like every president before him he has the right to fill his cabinet and other positions with whoever he chooses, and he has the right to fire whoever he wishes. That doesn't mean he's acting like a dictator. You have the right to hold those opinions but it's not going to change the fact that Trump is the president and that he acted within his right to fire the "acting" AG.
You had absolutely no problem criticizing Obama for his actions or inactions. Why this sudden respect for the office?
You should always look into the ramifications of any action taken or policy pursued by a politician, no matter their party affiliation ... unless you enjoy being used. Why a politician wants to do something is very important.
(February 1, 2017 at 10:34 am)A Theist Wrote:(February 1, 2017 at 9:03 am)ukatheist Wrote: If people bring successful cases against the EO, and are awarded damages, who do you think ultimately pays for that? I find it incredible that any tax payer would be applauding the dismissal of someone for telling the pusa that their actions are potentially illegal. Or are you happy to pay for every one of trumps ill thought out ideas?
Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk
ukatheist, as in, U.K. atheist?
Ad homineim spotted. Why are you so desperate to avoid simply answering Aegon's question?