• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Acting AG fired after she declines to defend Trump travel ban

No.
While Obama's picks made it political (like the one fired did), it is not supposed to be.
Enforcement of the law isn't a political thing, non-enforcement is.

In this case the person fired made it political by not enforcing the law.

That's nonsense. Of course it's a political job, which is why the old guy/lady appointed under the outgoing POTUS resigns as a matter of course, and the new guy always appointed by the new President. You have to know the job comes with tremendous discretion, for good or bad. It's just the nature of the position. It's no accident Trump chose a guy whose last 20 years were in the Senate, and not one of the many extremely competent CAREER prosecutors in the DoJ, any number of them competent to handle the non-political duties of the AG.

I guess you can say in an ideal world, the position would not be 'political' but we live in this reality where it most definitely IS political.
 
That's nonsense. Of course it's a political job, which is why the old guy/lady appointed under the outgoing POTUS resigns as a matter of course, and the new guy always appointed by the new President. You have to know the job comes with tremendous discretion, for good or bad. It's just the nature of the position. It's no accident Trump chose a guy whose last 20 years were in the Senate, and not one of the many extremely competent CAREER prosecutors in the DoJ, any number of them competent to handle the non-political duties of the AG.

I guess you can say in an ideal world, the position would not be 'political' but we live in this reality where it most definitely IS political.
iLOL
No.

The position is one of Political appointment, the actual job is not.
You enforce the law as written. That is not political. Purposely not enforcing the law as written, is Political.
 
And again you fail to refute anything I said.

Only if you are intentionally blind deaf and dumb to what I have said to you on this matter and reality.
 
Only if you are intentionally blind deaf and dumb to what I have said to you on this matter and reality.
No, that olny applies to you and your not refuting what I provided.
 
No, that olny applies to you and your not refuting what I provided.

You are playing ostrich as nothing I or anyone else can say will every amount to refuting you in your own mind.

You deny reality and thus cannot be rationally spoken to.
 
You are playing ostrich as nothing I or anyone else can say will every amount to refuting you in your own mind.

You deny reality and thus cannot be rationally spoken to.
You are only speaking of your own behavior here.
I am still waiting for you to actually refute what was provided.

I already know you can't, which explains why you are off and spinning in circles with this bs. It is just one of the things you do to deflect.
 
I love watching the left squirm. When you have nothing all you can do is call people names.

you have to understand that the left is far more dependent on government than us on the right. So when their wellspring of all that is good is run by the right, of course they are going to be petulant
 
You are only speaking of your own behavior here.
I am still waiting for you to actually refute what was provided.

I already know you can't, which explains why you are off and spinning in circles with this bs. It is just one of the things you do to deflect.

The only one deflecting here is you and you are deflecting from simple reality.

Tell me how a political appointment of a politician in a job where they are going to exercise their own discretion about important decisions and take into consideration the opinions of another political person - the president - is realistically not a political job.
 
You are only speaking of your own behavior here.
I am still waiting for you to actually refute what was provided.

What is it you think you provided to prove that the political job of attorney general is magically not a political job?

Here was your argument

Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
No.
While Obama's picks made it political (like the one fired did), it is not supposed to be.

Where does it say that AG is not a political job?

You just admitted that it was under Obama - so you already lost.

I gave you the example of John Mitchell under Republican President Nixon and Bobby Kennedy under Democrat JFK. Both were obviously political people who did their job with political consideration in decision making.

So don't pretend this started with Obama as that is simply factually wrong.

Your argument was just not only refuted - but crushed and flushed.
 
Last edited:
The only one deflecting here is you and you are deflecting from simple reality.
Wrong as usual.
You were the one deflecting.
The following was totally irrelevant nonsense by you, and then you just continued with the bs from there.

Do you know how babies are made and born? Clue: It has nothing to do with storks or cabbage patches.


Tell me how a political appointment of a politician in a job where they are going to exercise their own discretion about important decisions and take into consideration the opinions of another political person - the president - is realistically not a political job.
You confuse it being a political appointment with the actual job of enforcing the law as written. Those are two different things.
Again.

The position is one of Political appointment, the actual job is not.
You enforce the law as written. That is not political. Purposely not enforcing the law as written, is Political.



Of note: Your decision to focus on this (that which is irrelevant to her being in the wrong and her decision being a political one) is nothing but more deflection.


She was in the wrong. She made a political decision and chose not to follow the law.


Your argument was just not only refuted - but crushed and flushed.
iLOL
Figures.
Same ol' tired screed that is as wrong as you are.


You just admitted that it was under Obama - so you already lost.
:lamo
What a hilarious argument.

Just because the idiots on the left wrongly chose to use it in a political fashion does not actually make the job political. Duh!
 
Last edited:
Democrats will give Gorsuch a fair hearing and a vote.

You are correct in calling that the high ground .

Democrats are already whining about the pick and talking filibuster. Is that a fair hearing and a fair vote? More, like a hearing and a vote. If it was going to be fair then some Democrats would vote for him and he would be a shoe in to win confirmation. I seriously doubt Democrats will be taking the high ground.
 
Wrong as usual.
You were the one deflecting.
The following was totally irrelevant nonsense by you, and then you just continued with the bs from there.

Do you know how babies are made and born? Clue: It has nothing to do with storks or cabbage patches.


You confuse it being a political appointment with the actual job of enforcing the law as written. Those are two different things.
Again.

The position is one of Political appointment, the actual job is not.
You enforce the law as written. That is not political. Purposely not enforcing the law as written, is Political.



Of note: Your decision to focus on this (that which is irrelevant to her being in the wrong and her decision being a political one) is nothing but more deflection.


She was in the wrong. She made a political decision and chose not to follow the law.


iLOL
Figures.
Same ol' tired screed that is as wrong as you are.


:lamo
What a hilarious argument.

Just because the idiots on the left wrongly chose to use it in a political fashion does not actually make the job political. Duh!

All you did there was to repeat what I have already refuted.
 
Sessions will be the worst AG we've ever had.

Dark money 45 ads are now out lying about Sessions record.

The same Sessions who insisted that Yates be independent of the executive who fired her .

LOL

I'm afraid you're too late with that award. Eric Holder has set the bar so high, I would imagine it impossible for anyone to get that far into the clouds.
 
LOL

I'm afraid you're too late with that award. Eric Holder has set the bar so high, I would imagine it impossible for anyone to get that far into the clouds.


Eric Holder wasn't even an AG. He was a political activist.
 
lol

You yourself said "He is not doing anything that has not been done before." I agreed; the precedent for a President firing an Attorney General for not following questionable orders is when Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor, and forced the resignations of the AG and Deputy AG because they refused to fire the SP.

This is obviously nowhere near as severe, but this is not like firing an employee who refuses to do a task. The AG is supposed to have a degree of independence from the President, because her job is to uphold the Constitution and the law, not blindly follow orders.

If you meant "we've discriminated against immigrants on the basis of nationality," that's also not a proud moment for our nation -- including Carter banning Iranians in 1979. In fact, the purpose of the 1965 law was to prevent a repeat of unethical discrimination in immigration, as typified by laws targeting Chinese immigration. So not another precedent to be proud of.



That is very questionable, especially given that no one from those nations have in fact attacked the US; that several nations (where Trump happens to do business) where terrorists have come from were not barred; statements saying he wanted to ban Muslims and give Christians priority; and the 1965 law which explicitly bars immigration law from discriminating on the basis of religion, nationality and nation of origin



:roll:

No, I do care about the Constitution, or more importantly both the rights it tries to protect and the separation of powers it establishes. Congress can limit the powers of the President when it comes to immigration law; and the President cannot discriminate at the very minimum on the basis of religion, even when it comes to immigration law.

I also care very much about the safety of the US, which is NOT protected by offending Muslims around the world and in the US, as well as nations that are our allies -- which are now moving to retaliate.

Your an idiot. The attorney generals job is to defend the US government which at this point in time is Trump.
 
I know this isn't relevant to this discussion. But i recently started a political blog and i would really appreciate if you all read my posts. I just started it two days ago so I only have two posts but more are to come. I really want to get a discussion going on it. Anyway heres the link dividedcountry.blogspot.com Thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom