Session to Yates in '15: [as AG] you have to say "no" to POTUS. Will you?

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 03:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When I was in college, if my boss told me to inform every customer of our calibration service and I said I would not because I did not see the value in it and thought it waste of money, they would have had every right to fire me. Would I have been doing the right thing? Sure, but that's just a moral victory. 

Sessions was taking a dig at Obama when he asked her that question, just trying to score some points. If the Chief Executive says "this is how we are enforcing immigration" and it has not yet been deemed unconstitutional, you must do your part to faithfully execute the executive order if you wish to keep your job. If you have a backbone, tell them you believe it is wrong and, if they won't change their mind, then refuse and hope that the court eventually deems it unconstitutional as that you can at least score your moral victory. 

You are equating violating the US Constitution with marketing a service. I'm surprised, but, OK.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 04:17 PM)xxlt Wrote: You are equating violating the US Constitution with marketing a service. I'm surprised, but, OK.

You've been equating the United States today to the Weimar republic and Yates actions to the men of integrity who actually resigned after being ordered to do something unethical by Nixon.  Seems like his analogy was actually appropriate.

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're 100% right until the last little bit.  If you find what you are asked to do morally objectionable then you resign your position.  You've firmly grasped the point that seems to completely elude GMDino and xxlt though.

How'd that, "I was just following orders," defense go at the Nuremburg trials?

BTW, you work in law enforcement, right?

Are you going to defend Trump firing the judges who order stays on his illegal decrees? You going to trot out, "If the President does it is not illegal?" Nixon ran that one up the flagpole. The people that counted didn't salute.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2017, 04:17 PM)xxlt Wrote: You are equating violating the US Constitution with marketing a service. I'm surprised, but, OK.

While I disagree with the current ban and I believe it is in violation of the Constitution, legals minds on either side would be able to write an argument either way on it. It's not black and white and it isn't technically unconstitutional until a court says it is.

I also wouldn't compare a 90 day ban on immigration to killing Jews.


This is coming from someone who thinks Trump is an unqualified joke.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 04:22 PM)xxlt Wrote: How'd that, "I was just following orders," defense go at the Nuremburg trials?

It didn't.  Good thing that resignation was a possibility in this case then huh?  BTW, it was an option in Nazi Germany too, one several men availed themselves of.

Quote:BTW, you work in law enforcement, right?

Are you going to defend Trump firing the judges who order stays on his illegal decrees? You going to trot out, "If the President does it is not illegal?" Nixon ran that one up the flagpole. The people that counted didn't salute.

I don't believe you can fire judges, so yes, that would be problematic.  You finally hit on a good point though, it's the judges actual job to determine if something is illegal.  Thank you for helping me make my point

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2017, 05:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't believe you can fire judges, so yes, that would be problematic.  

Only 8 ever removed via impeachment and conviction. Given the required 2/3rd vote in the Senate, I'd say it'd be tough for him to "fire" them.

[Millhouse]

(01-31-2017, 04:22 PM)xxlt Wrote: How'd that, "I was just following orders," defense go at the Nuremburg trials?

BTW, you work in law enforcement, right?

Are you going to defend Trump firing the judges who order stays on his illegal decrees? You going to trot out, "If the President does it is not illegal?" Nixon ran that one up the flagpole. The people that counted didn't salute.

Committing war crimes on the Holocaust scale is a bit different than a travel ban for 90 days. 

Now if Trump ordered Muslim camps to be set up like FDR ordered in the 1940s of Japanese Americans, then he is going way too far. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 07:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Only 8 ever removed via impeachment and conviction. Given the required 2/3rd vote in the Senate, I'd say it'd be tough for him to "fire" them.

Kudos to you for actually doing the research.  I knew you couldn't "fire" them but wasn't going to expend the time to check on the actual process.

(01-31-2017, 07:17 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Committing war crimes on the Holocaust scale is a bit different than a travel ban for 90 days. 

Now if Trump ordered Muslim camps to be set up like FDR ordered in the 1940s of Japanese Americans, then he is going way too far. 

No, sir!  Clearly you haven't gotten the talking points memo.  Everything done by Trump must be equated to either Nazi Germany or 1984.

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 05:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It didn't.  Good thing that resignation was a possibility in this case then huh?  BTW, it was an option in Nazi Germany too, one several men availed themselves of.



I don't believe you can fire judges, so yes, that would be problematic.  You finally hit on a good point though, it's the judges actual job to determine if something is illegal.  Thank you for helping me make my point

But not the job of the president's lawyer to proffer an opinion, apparently? Your affinity for yes men may at some point be a problem, but until it is carry on. :andy:

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 07:17 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Committing war crimes on the Holocaust scale is a bit different than a travel ban for 90 days. 

Now if Trump ordered Muslim camps to be set up like FDR ordered in the 1940s of Japanese Americans, then he is going way too far. 

We'll let you know when it escalates to that point. Waiting for it to do so proved prudent for our forebears.

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 07:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, sir!  Clearly you haven't gotten the talking points memo.  Everything done by Trump must be equated to either Nazi Germany or 1984.

Unprecedented!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 10:47 PM)xxlt Wrote: But not the job of the president's lawyer to proffer an opinion, apparently? Your affinity for yes men may at some point be a problem, but until it is carry on. :andy:

Everyone around the president should proffer their opinion.  They just shouldn't do it in a press conference talking about how they refuse to follow their instructions. It's troubling that this distinction eludes you.  I come from a military family, you don't throw your superior under the bus in public.

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 10:48 PM)xxlt Wrote: We'll let you know when it escalates to that point. Waiting for it to do so proved prudent for our forebears.

I've heard there is a National shortage on tin foil, so they might get your brain too before you can warn us. 

[xxlt]

(02-01-2017, 12:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Everyone around the president should proffer their opinion.  They just shouldn't do it in a press conference talking about how they refuse to follow their instructions. It's troubling that this distinction eludes you.  I come from a military family, you don't throw your superior under the bus in public.

Missed the press conference. My understanding was she directed her underlings to not enforce the order. But, honestly, if she had a press conference that distinction doesn't matter to me. Right is right, and I don't give many style points. If your superior is subverting the Constitution, or abusing the power of their office, I say find the nearest bus. That's why we have whistle blower laws. Sometimes your kind get their way though, and power trumps righteousness.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-01-2017, 09:45 AM)xxlt Wrote: Missed the press conference. My understanding was she directed her underlings to not enforce the order. But, honestly, if she had a press conference that distinction doesn't matter to me. Right is right, and I don't give many style points. If your superior is subverting the Constitution, or abusing the power of their office, I say find the nearest bus. That's why we have whistle blower laws.

See, here's your problem, you're claiming right is right, but what we're discussing is her opinion, and yours.  This is not a clear cut, right and wrong order.  It is not unconstitutional, although certain elements may be, nor is it abusing the power of the office.  Yates, and yourself, find the order personally and politically objectionable.  You are both absolutely entitled to that opinion and you are entitled to act on your convictions.  What you are not entitled to do, if you want to claim you're doing the right thing, is lambaste your superior in public and expect to keep your job.  Yates is being called courageous when in fact she is a coward and an opportunist.  A person of morals and conviction would have talked to their superior in private about their reservations and then, if they still felt incapable of performing their job, they should resign.  That's what a person of integrity did in the Nixon example that the left has trotted out as their latest Trump conflation.

Quote:Sometimes your kind get their way though, and power trumps righteousness.

Gotta love the tolerant left.  If your opinion differs from theirs you're either a Nazi, racist or a fascist.  Keep it up and the GOP will have 70 seats in the senate by the end of 2018.

[GMDino]

(02-01-2017, 09:45 AM)xxlt Wrote: Missed the press conference. My understanding was she directed her underlings to not enforce the order. But, honestly, if she had a press conference that distinction doesn't matter to me. Right is right, and I don't give many style points. If your superior is subverting the Constitution, or abusing the power of their office, I say find the nearest bus. That's why we have whistle blower laws. Sometimes your kind get their way though, and power trumps righteousness.

Yep.  A letter to the justice department. 

But Trump was "betrayed" so off with her head!  (Not literally of course.) 

But despite her reasoning it will be put off as "her opinion" as if it was just something she felt and not something she looked into before commenting ased on her job and the law.

"Betrayed".  

[xxlt]

(02-01-2017, 02:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: See, here's your problem, you're claiming right is right, but what we're discussing is her opinion, and yours.  This is not a clear cut, right and wrong order.  It is not unconstitutional, although certain elements may be, nor is it abusing the power of the office.  Yates, and yourself, find the order personally and politically objectionable.  You are both absolutely entitled to that opinion and you are entitled to act on your convictions.  What you are not entitled to do, if you want to claim you're doing the right thing, is lambaste your superior in public and expect to keep your job.  Yates is being called courageous when in fact she is a coward and an opportunist.  A person of morals and conviction would have talked to their superior in private about their reservations and then, if they still felt incapable of performing their job, they should resign.  That's what a person of integrity did in the Nixon example that the left has trotted out as their latest Trump conflation.



Gotta love the tolerant left.  If your opinion differs from theirs you're either a Nazi, racist or a fascist.  Keep it up and the GOP will have 70 seats in the senate by the end of 2018.

Do you have a time line or a video of the press conference where she threw Trump under the bus before she was fired? I haven't read much from the pack of lying scum, but what I have read doesn't seem to mention her opportunistic press conference where she all but begged to be fired.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-02-2017, 05:29 AM)xxlt Wrote: Do you have a time line or a video of the press conference where she threw Trump under the bus before she was fired? I haven't read much from the pack of lying scum, but what I have read doesn't seem to mention her opportunistic press conference where she all but begged to be fired.

I misspoke, I'll admit it.  Now that I've done so, maybe you can address the substance of my posts instead of frantically dodging them.

[xxlt]

(02-02-2017, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I misspoke, I'll admit it.  Now that I've done so, maybe you can address the substance of my posts instead of frantically dodging them.

Kudos on the admission. I've always respected you, and that's an example of why.

It seems to me like a lot of what you posted hinged on the "throwing under the bus" is a "violation of chain of command" perspective. Now you admit that didn't happen. I said even if it did I thought Yates was right (to not enforce a law her knowledge of the law said was illegal) and Trump was wrong (to fire her, and do so with no knowledge of the law relatively speaking - he may have an MBA but not a JD). So, I am not sure what substance you are alleging I dodged. Help me see what you want addressed and I will do my best.

BTW, as far as chain of command and respect go, I believe based on prior conversations we have had that you would agree that when you model appropriate behavior in improves esprit de corps and strengthens the chain. So, consulting the attorney who will be charged with enforcing the order would have been a good move. I can't say Trump did not, but I have seen nothing (generally or specific to this case) indicating he did that.

So, from my "liberal ***** snowflake" perspective that is pretty poor management on the part of the Tiger and not too presidential or likely to win friends or influence people. It is sort of like hanging up on a peer in the middle of a conversation. Just Trump being Trump, and a lot of Joe Six Packs may love this shoot from the hip with no training approach. Would you like it in an officer? In a shift commander? In a chief of police? I hope I know you well enough to know the answer to those questions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-02-2017, 05:35 PM)xxlt Wrote: Kudos on the admission. I've always respected you, and that's an example of why.

It seems to me like a lot of what you posted hinged on the "throwing under the bus" is a "violation of chain of command" perspective. Now you admit that didn't happen. I said even if it did I thought Yates was right (to not enforce a law her knowledge of the law said was illegal) and Trump was wrong (to fire her, and do so with no knowledge of the law relatively speaking - he may have an MBA but not a JD). So, I am not sure what substance you are alleging I dodged. Help me see what you want addressed and I will do my best.

She did make the matter public, I just shouldn't have used the term press conference but that doesn't change the substance of my point.

Quote:BTW, as far as chain of command and respect go, I believe based on prior conversations we have had that you would agree that when you model appropriate behavior in improves esprit de corps and strengthens the chain. So, consulting the attorney who will be charged with enforcing the order would have been a good move. I can't say Trump did not, but I have seen nothing (generally or specific to this case) indicating he did that.

Absolutely, we agree 100%.  I think Trump would be a horrible superior to work for.  I still think a professional needs to act like a professional regardless, especially at this level of government.

Quote:So, from my "liberal ***** snowflake" perspective that is pretty poor management on the part of the Tiger and not too presidential or likely to win friends or influence people. It is sort of like hanging up on a peer in the middle of a conversation. Just Trump being Trump, and a lot of Joe Six Packs may love this shoot from the hip with no training approach. Would you like it in an officer? In a shift commander? In a chief of police? I hope I know you well enough to know the answer to those questions.

I've never called you that nor would I consider you that type of person.  As I stated above, I'm rather confident that Trump is not a pleasant person to work for.  Shoot from the hip types are fine, as long as they know there's a time and a place where you can shoot from the hip and times where it's a horrible idea to do so.  In short, exercise good judgment.  We're digressing a bit here though.