Whatcha thinking about now?

[EndlessCravings]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

My best friend was arrested today. He's definitely going to be doing some time.

[Chessa]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

I have a job again! In a library!

[Heka]

I went to the gym!

[iris]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

So Sally Yates has been sacked for standing up to Trump. No doubt replaced by a hand-picked 'yes man'. At what point do we start referring to the US as a dictatorship?

I think now? At least I have already... just a blooming one though. It's like watching historyhappen from afar. Which would be ever so interesting if he didn't have access to nuclear weapons.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

So Sally Yates has been sacked for standing up to Trump. No doubt replaced by a hand-picked 'yes man'. At what point do we start referring to the US as a dictatorship?

The DoJ answers to the President. A full Attorney General saying, "We aren't going to back the President's move here," is asking to be replaced. Yates was not a full AG. She was a deputy AG acting as the full AG till Trump rounds out his Cabinet. Of course she was gonna be fired for trying to block Trump. If she didn't try then eventually she was gonna be stuck dealing with a Trump loyalist serving as AG anyway because Cabinet positions are Presidential appointments and always have been. Yes, Trump is a moron and an ass but getting rid of a defiant deputy AG isn't even stretching his authority and similar acts of defiance would likely have gained the same result from prior presidents. There's nothing special here beyond a placeholder AG thinking they can defy their boss in a situation that doesn't involve invoking the 25th Amendment.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

Well, not since Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre...

[anunitu]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

One small fact comes to mind..I hesitate to invoke a certain internet taboo subject,so I will speak in general terms. In the past in a certain land,people were tried for deeds done by a certain political group who lost a war to another land. The people tried used a defense with the argument that they were "ONLY following orders",but that did not save them from their punishment(I suppose a fatal flaw) The point is we(all of us) are responsible for our personal deeds,good or evil when confronted about them in the future.

The future may shift again,and history may indeed return to bite some on their butts.

Have a pleasant future(and save your butt from the past indiscretions)

[Chessa]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

^That trial was the reason for the Milgram experiment. Long story short, anyone can be horrible when they're ordered to

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

Facebook reminded me that today is Chain's birthday. I really miss him.

[anubisa]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

My family and I have the flu. I hope I get better soon. Ugh.

[Heka]

Facebook reminded me that today is Chain's birthday. I really miss him.

Me too... thanks for that fb

[Medusa]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

The DoJ answers to the President. A full Attorney General saying, "We aren't going to back the President's move here," is asking to be replaced. Yates was not a full AG. She was a deputy AG acting as the full AG till Trump rounds out his Cabinet. Of course she was gonna be fired for trying to block Trump. If she didn't try then eventually she was gonna be stuck dealing with a Trump loyalist serving as AG anyway because Cabinet positions are Presidential appointments and always have been. Yes, Trump is a moron and an ass but getting rid of a defiant deputy AG isn't even stretching his authority and similar acts of defiance would likely have gained the same result from prior presidents. There's nothing special here beyond a placeholder AG thinking they can defy their boss in a situation that doesn't involve invoking the 25th Amendment.

yes. buuuut. It takes a special type of president that would make anyone in your cabinet bail. He's a repugnant waste of abortion tissue.


but ask me how I really feel. I've given up on being pc and giving pieces of poop a chance. I'm done. You don't deal with poop by wearing pearls. You wear your crappy pants and crappy shoes and crappy attitude. That's me.

[thalassa]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

The DoJ answers to the President. A full Attorney General saying, "We aren't going to back the President's move here," is asking to be replaced. Yates was not a full AG. She was a deputy AG acting as the full AG till Trump rounds out his Cabinet. Of course she was gonna be fired for trying to block Trump. If she didn't try then eventually she was gonna be stuck dealing with a Trump loyalist serving as AG anyway because Cabinet positions are Presidential appointments and always have been. Yes, Trump is a moron and an ass but getting rid of a defiant deputy AG isn't even stretching his authority and similar acts of defiance would likely have gained the same result from prior presidents. There's nothing special here beyond a placeholder AG thinking they can defy their boss in a situation that doesn't involve invoking the 25th Amendment.

Actually, no. Civil servants are NOT required to obey the president. It's not in our oath of office, and it is contrary to the very reason there is a federal workforce, which is to a) provide continuity between the insanity of public opinion and b) to do their actual job, regardless of the insanity of the individual the public puts into office. In fact, the ability to TELL the president that something is unconstitutional, unlawful, unscientific, etc IS actually the job of these agencies and their personnel (at least the higher up folks--people at my level just do the work).


Civil Service Oath:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

[anunitu]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

I watched the news where they pointed out that that DOJ is supposed to be a CHECK on over reach and to point out when a POTUS puts something forward that might be considered not allowed by the constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

This is interesting. Google news has added a section named "Executive orders"

Link to that section.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Whatcha thinking about now?

Actually, no. Civil servants are NOT required to obey the president. It's not in our oath of office, and it is contrary to the very reason there is a federal workforce, which is to a) provide continuity between the insanity of public opinion and b) to do their actual job, regardless of the insanity of the individual the public puts into office. In fact, the ability to TELL the president that something is unconstitutional, unlawful, unscientific, etc IS actually the job of these agencies and their personnel (at least the higher up folks--people at my level just do the work).


Civil Service Oath:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Just my personal opinion here but the Attorney General has to uphold the laws the President signs into law until the Courts officially rule them to be in violation of the constitution. The AG by his or herself is not in a position to make that determination and advising or stating such a position to the Dept. of Justice would be a violation of that office. May not like what was signed into law but still have to perform your duty and the duties of your office.