• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I was assuming that they cared about democracy. There are many choices they can make if we take away the stipulation that they care about how the system is supposed to work, up to and including shooting Trump.
Click to expand...

Where would their choice mean they don't care about Democracy? They were hired by Trump, who was democratically elected. Therefore their responsibility is to Trump, and Trump is responsible to the voter. Trump is the elected representative, and it's his responsibility to employ effective people to carry out his desires.
 
quadraginta said:
Somehow this number sounds a bit questionable to me.
Click to expand...


He's probably still talking about the six imaginary steel plants that he claimed U.S. Steel was opening during the Summer.

"U.S. Steel just announced that they are building six new steel mills," Trump said July 31 in Tampa. "And that number is soon going to be lifted, but I'm not allowed to say that, so I won't."

Trump repeated the company would open six major facilities at a roundtable in Minnesota on June 20 and again at a lunch with members of Congress on June 26.

That would be huge news, given the company only has four steelmaking facilities in the United States. But there’s no evidence on their website that any new mills are on the horizon.

Meghan Cox, a spokeswoman for U.S. Steel, told us that Trump wasn’t privy to any exclusive information.

Cox pointed to several projects U.S. Steel announced this year. That includes plans to invest $275 million to $325 million in capital projects, announced in February; to construct a new steel-coating line to help PRO-TEC, a subsidiary, make cars in Leipsic, Ohio; and to restart two blast furnaces that will create 800 new jobs at an integrated steel-making plant in Granite City. The company idled those furnaces in 2015, laying off about 2,000 workers.
Click to expand...
 
Parsman said:
Here in the UK the Suffragettes had to campaign and some of them chose to break the law to promote their case for the vote for women. In the USA the Civil Rights movement was often carried out by passive resistance to discriminatory laws against the black community. I believe in both these cases breaking the law was justified. While not to be encouraged in all cases, sometimes the injustice of the law is such that unlawful behaviour is the only way to successfully challenge it.
Click to expand...

Yep like that Criminal Dr King or Gandi, they is a model of exactly how not to run a protest. Look how often they broke the law and got locked up? Horrible horrible people.
 
Paul2 said:
Change the law then, or engage in civil disobedience and accept the punishment the law defines. How else can it work?
Click to expand...

Hey the law is so simple even a 3 year old can understand it, that is why they don't need representation.
 
Segnosaur said:
It might be argued that incumbents have an advantage when it comes to re-election, and thus a vested interest in not 'rocking the boat', and thus will be less likely to provide any sort of balance to a president who has gone off the deep end. With term limits, you will constantly be bringing in new people; if you don't have an incumbent hanging around, you'll get more turnover and more upsets, resulting in more challenge to presidential authority.

That's a theory anyways.
Click to expand...

But look at all the republicans quitting and then look at how many of them are standing up to Trump? That shows that the theory doesn't exactly work all that well.
 
LSSBB said:
Where would their choice mean they don't care about Democracy? They were hired by Trump, who was democratically elected. Therefore their responsibility is to Trump, and Trump is responsible to the voter. Trump is the elected representative, and it's his responsibility to employ effective people to carry out his desires.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember an Oath of office where people swear to defend the constitution, but I don't remember anything about swearing allegiance to the president. Is there some reason they should be working for his interests instead of the good of the nation?
 
ponderingturtle said:
It might be argued that incumbents have an advantage when it comes to re-election, and thus a vested interest in not 'rocking the boat', and thus will be less likely to provide any sort of balance to a president who has gone off the deep end. With term limits, you will constantly be bringing in new people; if you don't have an incumbent hanging around, you'll get more turnover and more upsets, resulting in more challenge to presidential authority.

That's a theory anyways.
Click to expand...
But look at all the republicans quitting and then look at how many of them are standing up to Trump?
Click to expand...
At this point, pretty much none.
That shows that the theory doesn't exactly work all that well.
Click to expand...
My 'theory' (if it could be called that) isn't about the current crop of congress critters. Its about the next crop.

Of all the republicans who are quitting, how many are in seats that they could have held had they decided to run again (due to name recognition) that are now up for grabs.

For example, look at Corker and his Tennessee senate seat... he probably would have been reelected had he decided to stick around, but now that he's leaving, it appears to be a rather close battle between a republican and a democrat.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/ten...mocratic-senate-candidate-over-blackburn.html

With term limits you would probably get more of those same type of battles. Voters thinking "I liked the guy I voted for last time, but he's gone so its an open field for me to cast my vote".
 
phunk said:
I seem to remember an Oath of office where people swear to defend the constitution, but I don't remember anything about swearing allegiance to the president. Is there some reason they should be working for his interests instead of the good of the nation?
Click to expand...

How are they "not defending the constitution"? Does it say "thou shalt not steal a paper from thy bosses desk"? Did the constitution hand them an order?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Because they're undermining the office of the president by literally taking papers off his desk because they're afraid he might sign them.
Click to expand...

They are functionaries of the Office of President. They are undermining the leader of that office, and the leader of that office selected them. He should not have hired people he could not trust, or he should put mechanisms in place to ensure they do as he asked. It is the same in every office, everywhere. They are not elected, they do not run for office. Trump is 100% accountable for his office.
 
Segnosaur said:
At this point, pretty much none.

My 'theory' (if it could be called that) isn't about the current crop of congress critters. Its about the next crop.
Click to expand...

Why would they be different next time? This only seems to make them more beholden to lobbyists.
 
LSSBB said:
They are functionaries of the Office of President. They are undermining the leader of that office, and the leader of that office selected them. He should not have hired people he could not trust, or he should put mechanisms in place to ensure they do as he asked. It is the same in every office, everywhere. They are not elected, they do not run for office. Trump is 100% accountable for his office.
Click to expand...

Basic rule of management :If you are in a top job, you are held responsible for the actions of the people under you. If they are screwing up, it was part of your job to spot it early on and take corrective action. That is management 101.
 
Belz... said:
From what I hear, people in the WH been filtering information from presidents for a good while now.
Click to expand...

True, but it is different with Trump. In that past, it has simply been to keep the president from being bothered with routine stuff so be can concentrate on the most important issues. It's a totally different situation with Trump.
 
Trump tweeted

"Americans deserve to know the lowest drug price at their pharmacy, but “gag clauses” prevent your pharmacist from telling you! I support legislation that will remove gag clauses and urge the Senate to act. #AmericanPatientsFirst"
 
dudalb said:
True, but it is different with Trump. In that past, it has simply been to keep the president from being bothered with routine stuff so be can concentrate on the most important issues. It's a totally different situation with Trump.
Click to expand...

No, there was an example given in the NYT OP Ed (Lodestar) thread that was policy modifying and was in the Obama administration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom