(January 31, 2017 at 3:52 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(January 31, 2017 at 10:46 am)Aegon Wrote: Just because he can fire her doesn't mean he should have. What's your argument for why he should have?

It doesn't matter what anybody thinks. Trump's the president. He has that right. Any arguing against it isn't going to change anything. Many of us didn't like Barack Obama but we were stuck with him for eight years anyway. The Republicans won, the democrats lost. Trump's in the White House. All the arguing back and forth isn't going to change that. You're stuck with Trump like we were stuck with BO.

Might makes right, eh?

(January 31, 2017 at 4:10 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(January 31, 2017 at 3:52 pm)A Theist Wrote: It doesn't matter what anybody thinks. Trump's the president. He has that right. Any arguing against it isn't going to change anything. Many of us didn't like Barack Obama but we were stuck with him for eight years anyway. The Republicans won, the democrats lost. Trump's in the White House. All the arguing back and forth isn't going to change that. You're stuck with Trump like we were stuck with BO.

He's a president not a king. If my President does something that I do not agree with I'm going to say something. Don't pretend the Republicans rolled over and let Obama do whatever he wanted just because he was POTUS... far from it, actually. 

I said earlier that she was refusing to do her job so it made sense she was fired, but now I understand that it's quite the opposite; it's the AG's job to inquiry into whether what they are enforcing is proper, and legal. The next AG, Sessions, even said so in Yates' confirmation hearings back in 2015. So, from that point of view, she was fired for doing her job correctly; she enforces and follows the law and the Constitution. If the POTUS asks the AG to enforce something deemed improper, they should take a stand, just like she did. 

"Trump's the president" ain't a good enough answer, sorry. Nobody should stand for that sort of response, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. "[x] is the president, doesn't matter what anybody thinks" is how you get a tyrant.

Sorry, but "Trump's the president" is a good enough answer. He was within his right to fire her. Other than complain and moan on a discussion forum over what he did, what can any of you do to change the outcome? Nothing. The election's over. The democrats lost.

(January 31, 2017 at 8:33 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(January 31, 2017 at 4:10 pm)Aegon Wrote: He's a president not a king. If my President does something that I do not agree with I'm going to say something. Don't pretend the Republicans rolled over and let Obama do whatever he wanted just because he was POTUS... far from it, actually. 

I said earlier that she was refusing to do her job so it made sense she was fired, but now I understand that it's quite the opposite; it's the AG's job to inquiry into whether what they are enforcing is proper, and legal. The next AG, Sessions, even said so in Yates' confirmation hearings back in 2015. So, from that point of view, she was fired for doing her job correctly; she enforces and follows the law and the Constitution. If the POTUS asks the AG to enforce something deemed improper, they should take a stand, just like she did. 

"Trump's the president" ain't a good enough answer, sorry. Nobody should stand for that sort of response, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. "[x] is the president, doesn't matter what anybody thinks" is how you get a tyrant.

Sorry, but "Trump's the president" is a good enough answer. He was within his right to fire her. Other than complain and moan on a discussion forum over what he did, what can any of you do to change the outcome? Nothing. The election's over. The democrats lost.

That's it, keep clapping and cheering while your democracy is systematically dismantled. As long as they don't come for you, eh? There's a good little organ grinder monkey.

(January 31, 2017 at 10:26 pm)Iroscato Wrote:

(January 31, 2017 at 8:33 pm)A Theist Wrote: Sorry, but "Trump's the president" is a good enough answer. He was within his right to fire her. Other than complain and moan on a discussion forum over what he did, what can any of you do to change the outcome? Nothing. The election's over. The democrats lost.

That's it, keep clapping and cheering while your democracy is systematically dismantled. As long as they don't come for you, eh? There's a good little organ grinder monkey.

Well of course not after all "Jobs "and "Security"

(January 31, 2017 at 8:33 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(January 31, 2017 at 4:10 pm)Aegon Wrote: He's a president not a king. If my President does something that I do not agree with I'm going to say something. Don't pretend the Republicans rolled over and let Obama do whatever he wanted just because he was POTUS... far from it, actually. 

I said earlier that she was refusing to do her job so it made sense she was fired, but now I understand that it's quite the opposite; it's the AG's job to inquiry into whether what they are enforcing is proper, and legal. The next AG, Sessions, even said so in Yates' confirmation hearings back in 2015. So, from that point of view, she was fired for doing her job correctly; she enforces and follows the law and the Constitution. If the POTUS asks the AG to enforce something deemed improper, they should take a stand, just like she did. 

"Trump's the president" ain't a good enough answer, sorry. Nobody should stand for that sort of response, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. "[x] is the president, doesn't matter what anybody thinks" is how you get a tyrant.

Sorry, but "Trump's the president" is a good enough answer. He was within his right to fire her. Other than complain and moan on a discussion forum over what he did, what can any of you do to change the outcome? Nothing. The election's over. The democrats lost.

Since you just repeated what you already said without addressing my actual argument, I'll just stop here.

You think this is the same as not liking Obama? Not remotely, though I know none of you will listen. I would welcome Mitt Romney right now with open arms!

No, the democrats didn't lose. The country lost. You are just too blinded by partisanship to see it. Goose step along there.

(January 31, 2017 at 10:38 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(January 31, 2017 at 8:33 pm)A Theist Wrote: Sorry, but "Trump's the president" is a good enough answer. He was within his right to fire her. Other than complain and moan on a discussion forum over what he did, what can any of you do to change the outcome? Nothing. The election's over. The democrats lost.

Since you just repeated what you already said without addressing my actual argument, I'll just stop here.

There's no argument. "The election's over". - Barack to McCain 2010.

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.

(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.

(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.

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