Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

darkpagandeath

MightyMandarin wrote: »

There's no point in trying to squeeze an answer from darkpagandeath, I had the same issue a few days ago. As slimy a poster as you'll find around here.

Lol, Sorry If I have not drank the Group think coolaid.

Billy86

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No idea do you own a time machine I don't ? It was 2014.

You don't need a time machine to answer why did they want to make sure that she would stand up to the president if they were going to just fire her for doing it?

You really don't want to answer the question, but sure what else is new.

Billy86

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Lol, Sorry If I have not drank the Group think coolaid.

So edgy, man.

Leroy42

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What are you on about I live in Ireland. Can you explain how these pieces of paper one is calling them are unconstitutional ? They have not been found to be yet. You do realise where those pieces of paper have to go ?

The AG just stated that they should not be legally contested. Now why do you think that is? It's not because she is a woman, or democrat or white, or whatever. She believes that legally the EO doesn't stand up.

Now of course all legal opinion is just that, but 3 (at least) judges had already placed a stay on the implementation so there was some grounds for a legal argument.

Do you not think it odd that a person does the job they are hired to do, even asked about doing it by Sessions during her recruitment, and then not only is she dismissed but stated that she betrayed her position.

MightyMandarin

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Lol, Sorry If I have not drank the Group think coolaid.

No problem with you disagreeing with anyone or everyone, you're just a dreadful person to argue with as you never answer the question, divert the discussion or just don't respond when you know you have no case.

darkpagandeath

Billy86 wrote: »

So edgy, man.

LOl, Must be to loose the ball continually.

listermint

A Little Pony wrote: »

The EU undermines itself. David Cameron tried to get concessions on immigration, they wouldn't budge an inch on it. They destroy themselves.

Ah grand then... :rolleyes:

darkpagandeath

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No problem with you disagreeing with anyone or everyone, you're just a dreadful person to argue with as you never answer the question, divert the discussion or just don't respond when you know you have no case.

Case for what ?

darkpagandeath

Billy86 wrote: »

You don't need a time machine to answer why did they want to make sure that she would stand up to the president if they were going to just fire her for doing it?

You really don't want to answer the question, but sure what else is new.

I have no idea why they asked 1 question in 2014. Trump was not in power.

Billy86

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No problem with you disagreeing with anyone or everyone, you're just a dreadful person to argue with as you never answer the question, divert the discussion or just don't respond when you know you have no case.

You forgot intentionally misunderstanding questions, pretending to not get the point, and trying to weasel around with semantics. Lucky, the poster covered some of that for you...

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Case for what ?

Leroy42

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I have no idea why they asked 1 question in 2014. Trump was not in power.

You have no idea why they would ask the question about whether she would stand up for the constition over the president? Really?

Billy86

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I have no idea why they asked 1 question in 2014. Trump was not in power.

Then you have no idea what the job of the Attorney General is, so you're just arguing and being contrarian for the sake of arguing and being contrarian... to the surprise of absolutely nobody.

MightyMandarin

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Case for what ?

Case for discussion.

Just like we discussed about implementing some policies, which you at least didn't disagree with, in America. You never answered yes or no, always pivoted to 'Oh I'm not American, they do things differently there etc' and then picked out minute points I made and tried to swing the discussion towards them.

I'll gladly discuss any issue with people I disagree with and admit when I'm wrong but you will not and then claim 'Oh I just don't drink the coolaid' to make you seem above an argument, because you're in the minority.

darkpagandeath

Leroy42 wrote: »

You have no idea why they would ask the question about whether she would stand up for the constition over the president? Really?

Barry was in power not Trump So I cant really see where people are going with this. Again them not having access to a time machine.

LuckyLloyd

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The Attorney General position in the US is slightly different from here in the sense that the Irish Attorney General is primarily just a quasi-member of cabinet whose main role is to advise the Government on legal issues.

In the US the AG has that role, but they are also the head of the Department of Justice and technically the top law enforcement officer for the Federal Government.

It's a weird hybrid of Attorney General, aspects of the DPP and the Minister for Justice. In some ways, quite old fashioned and lacking in divisions of power and placing way too much authority in one person and also because it's a direct presidential appointment, in the president themselves.

The checks and balances in the USA are often not criticised enough because there's a lot of weird patriotic, almost worship of the Founding Fathers and how their system of government is somehow the pinnacle of democracy. Compared to many European system, which have evolved more and also since WWII have had the addition of the ECHR and EU ideals around checks and balances and democratic oversight. In contrast, the Federal US system can sometimes be rather frozen in time and very executive heavy.

In a lot of cases the checks and balances have really functioned because the office holders, particularly the president, has followed a doctrine of precedent about a lot of issues e.g. divesting from their own involvement in businesses etc. Trump seems to be only doing what is absolutely legally required of him and sticking to the letter of the law, which is really removing a hell of a lot of protections from the system.

My concern with Trump is that when you strip the US presidency back and start operating it to the maximum of what's permitted in the constitution and throw away a lot of the niceties of what has been done to date by presidents of both parties, you end up with an extremely powerful executive that can throw a hell of a lot of weight around without consulting anyone at all.

Unless something changes very radically in the house and senate, you're not going to see much moderation at all.

Politics aside, it doesn't really matter if the guy's a Republican or a Democrat (and in reality he is neither), having someone who is going to run a democratic country based on a totally dictatorial approach is going to lead to absolutely chaos as he is not even achieving slight consensus on issues. You can't really operate like that without causing huge problems as people will not move along with you.

Government can only function by consent and if that consent disappears, what's he going to do? You either slip into a situation where the country turns into an ungovernable mess, or you end up with an authoritarian using force of law to impose their will.

Either way it's not a good thing for the US or the rest of the world for that mater either.

He did run and win the election on these issues. He hasn't done anything thus far that wasn't put before the electorate during his campaign. In the same way that Obama ran on Health Care in 2008. As scary as it may be, there is a large swathe of the American body politic that agree with and support these executive measures.

darkpagandeath

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Case for discussion.

Just like we discussed about implementing some policies, which you at least didn't disagree with, in America. You never answered yes or no, always pivoted to 'Oh I'm not American, they do things differently there etc' and then picked out minute points I made and tried to swing the discussion towards them.

I'll gladly discuss any issue with people I disagree with and admit when I'm wrong but you will not and then claim 'Oh I just don't drink the coolaid' to make you seem above an argument, because you're in the minority.

As far As I remember it was a hypothetical on Your values in Relation to the USA. I don't really Do hypothetical. As I tried to point out America is Capitalist.

Lets get back on Topic.

Minority of what now ? Did you vote for trump ?

Billy86

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Barry was in power not Trump So I cant really see where people are going with this. Again them not having access to a time machine.

The new president does not get to dictate what their checks and balances are, and what the job descriptions of all of government are. Yet you, while trying to laugh off the thought of Trump pushing for autocratic and dictatorial powers, appear to think the president does have dictatorial powers.

autocrat
noun: autocrat; plural noun: autocrats
- a ruler who has absolute power
- an imperious person who insists on complete obedience from others.

dictator
noun: dictator; plural noun: dictators
- a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
- a person who behaves in an autocratic way.

She broke from 'complete obedience' to threaten the total power he is trying to exert since his inauguration, and immediately got thrown out for it.

Leroy42

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Barry was in power not Trump So I cant really see where people are going with this. Again them not having access to a time machine.

You think the role of AG changes depending on who the president is?

darkpagandeath

Leroy42 wrote: »

You think the role of AG changes depending on who the president is?

Nope, I am Being asked to come up with some CT. This happened in 2014.

darkpagandeath

Billy86 wrote: »

The new president does not get to dictate what their checks and balances are, and what the job descriptions of all of government are. Yet you, while trying to laugh off the thought of Trump pushing for autocratic and dictatorial powers, appear to think the president does have dictatorial powers.

autocrat
noun: autocrat; plural noun: autocrats
- a ruler who has absolute power
- an imperious person who insists on complete obedience from others.

dictator
noun: dictator; plural noun: dictators
- a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
- a person who behaves in an autocratic way.

She broke from 'complete obedience' to threaten the total power he is trying to exert since his inauguration, and immediately got thrown out for it.

Can you tell us what he has done that was not put before the electorate ?

Leroy42

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He did run and win the election on these issues. He hasn't done anything thus far that wasn't put before the electorate during his campaign. In the same way that Obama ran on Health Care in 2008. As scary as it may be, there is a large swathe of the American body politic that agree with and support these executive measures.

Just because he ran on them does not automatically mean they are legal.

Its the law and the constitution that decides not the voters. The voters decide who will be in charge, but whomever it is must be in charge within the rules.

darkpagandeath

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just because he ran on them does not automatically mean they are legal.

Its the law and the constitution that decides not the voters. The voters decide who will be in charge, but whomever it is must be in charge within the rules.

What has been Illegal now ?

Billy86

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope, I am Being asked to come up with some CT. This happened in 2014.

So then what was asked of her is every bit as relevant today as it was in 2014. Which brings us right back to square one... why did they want to make sure that she would stand up to the president if they were going to just fire her for doing it?

Trent Houseboat

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What are you on about I live in Ireland. Can you explain how these pieces of paper one is calling them are unconstitutional ? They have not been found to be yet. You do realise where those pieces of paper have to go ?

Who said they were unconstitutional? Are you trying to drag me into a debate about US constitutional law? I don't know anything about it and I doubt you do either.
You said there was no alternative to ruling by decree and then firing any dissenters. I presented you with an alternative.

darkpagandeath

Billy86 wrote: »

So then what was asked of her is every bit as relevant today as it was in 2014. Which brings us right back to square one... why did they want to make sure that she would stand up to the president if they were going to just fire her for doing it?

I have no idea ??? What do you want from me ?

darkpagandeath

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Who said they were unconstitutional? Are you trying to drag me into a debate about US constitutional law? I don't know anything about it and I doubt you do either.
You said there was no alternative to ruling by decree and then firing any dissenters. I presented you with an alternative.

Obama has issued 195 executive orders

ricero

Looking forward to seeing what changes the donald makes to us immigration policy. Hes the first president to actually tackle the problem head on and i wonder how he will deport over 2 million illigals with criminal records. If he does it succesfully he will be a hero to the american people

Christy42

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope, I am Being asked to come up with some CT. This happened in 2014.

How is it CT. She was asked if she would stand up to a president because it is a requirement for the post that they stand up to the president if they feel something does not have a good legal basing. They had no idea if it would come up but they wanted to know if she was prepared if it did. Turns out she was.

LuckyLloyd

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just because he ran on them does not automatically mean they are legal.

Its the law and the constitution that decides not the voters. The voters decide who will be in charge, but whomever it is must be in charge within the rules.

If he eventually loses some of these things via the Supreme Court, that's fine. The ACA was taken to the Supreme Court multiple times and stood up to constitutional scrutiny. That's the ultimate check and balance however.

VinLieger

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He did run and win the election on these issues. He hasn't done anything thus far that wasn't put before the electorate during his campaign. In the same way that Obama ran on Health Care in 2008. As scary as it may be, there is a large swathe of the American body politic that agree with and support these executive measures.

Yes he won the election but his popularity has been dipping ever since then, he already has recorded the lowest popularity since they started recording it of any president in their first week of office.

He won the election cus there was a middle ground of 10-15% that were undecideds who simply hated Hilary more than him. With these moves he's not doing anything to keep that middle ground onside now hes got no Hillary to deflect their dislike of him and is just appealing to his extremist base.

Congress is up for re-election in November 2018 if trump continues losing popularity and bottoming out to what many consider his base to be high 20's to low 30's many republicans in congress might abandon him in favour of keeping their own seats.