No Kings? ...or no Brains?

[martybegan]

Trump can only fire a federal reserve governor for cause.

It's pretty authoritarian to make shit up about Lisa Cook and use that as an excuse to fire her, don't you think?

And that is being challenged, as well as other so called "independent" federal executive agencies.

 

[Independent thinker]

‘No Kings’ Has Republicans in Disarray

Why GOP lawmakers are spreading fear about the upcoming rally.

www.thebulwark.com

The utterly insipid demonstrations planned for Saturday are a great manifestation of U.S. Leftism in this, the era of Trump. They have no agenda, no plan, nothing to offer the American people other than a sophomoric hate for the President who roundly defeated them last November. To call their movement, "No Kings" is tantamount to saying, "Up with the Good; Down with the Bad." No one can argue with it, but it is meaningless.

The linked article tries to make the case that No Kings has the Republicans quaking in their figurative boots, but I don't see any of that. When your adversary is making an ass of itself speaking, the best strategy is simply to let it speak.

Our Beloved President, bringing a private-sector resume to the ultimate public sector executive position, is exploring the limits of Presidential powers, expecting to be shot down in some instances and successful in others. This is not "authoritarianism," it is good management - a strategy that will benefit everyone who succeeds him in the Presidency.

My older sister (86 and counting) participated with dozens of her bunkmates at an independent living facility in the last No Kings rally, and she was proud as punch for the experience. I figure she was a bit too old for the anti-war protests during Vietnam and she's finally finding a "cause" that she can protest about, even though nobody can articulate its meaning other than, "We are pissed off that we lost the last election."

I used to think that Leftists would never be able to surpass the stupidity of the Occupy protests, but I admit I was wrong. It is interesting that they didn't plan this for a Friday. Essentially none of them work for a living, and it would have been much more disruptive.

Even though the very huge majority of protests accomplish nothing, this one is a sure fire winner because after the protests, the US will have no kings.

 

[martybegan]

Even though the very huge majority of protests accomplish nothing, this one is a sure fire winner because after the protests, the US will have no kings.

These guys beg to differ.

 

[Rawley]

Shall we go on?

Please. Seeing the extent to which President Trump occupies your every waking thought is fascinating.

 

[Marener]

The law is unconstitutional and is being challenged.

All power in the executive branch flows from the President, and all executive power is handled by the executive branch.

Semi-independent "agencies" are unconstitutional and have been allowed to exist for far too long by far to activist jurists.

This is how an authoritarian thinks. They don't believe that Congress can limit their authority.

 

[ChristisKing]

England has a King but we have a President. This is a stupid protest.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Zincwarrior]

My thoughts exactly.

Depends on whether there is music and food, and if the lasses are easy on the eyes. That was always my criteria when they had weekly marches in undergrad.

 

[martybegan]

This is how an authoritarian thinks. They don't believe that Congress can limit their authority.

Congress tells the President what he can do by passing laws allowing him to do so,, but they cannot instruct the executive how to run the executive branch.

Semi "independent" agencies are unconstitutional and will soon be found to be so. First Roe goes bye bye, then Chevron deference. Now we need to get rid of the idea that some executive agencies are independent from the elected executive.

Why then can't congress just say they have to appoint cabinet members instead of the President doing so?

 

[Marener]

Congress tells the President what he can do by passing laws allowing him to do so,, but they cannot instruct the executive how to run the executive branch.

Semi "independent" agencies are unconstitutional and will soon be found to be so. First Roe goes bye bye, then Chevron deference. Now we need to get rid of the idea that some executive agencies are independent from the elected executive.

Why then can't congress just say they have to appoint cabinet members instead of the President doing so?

Hey, that's your belief. Just don't pretend that Trump isn't EXPANDING the authority of the presidency and exercising AUTHORITY over things that prior presidents didn't.

You believe the president can fire anyone for any reason at any time.

That's bad for the country. We aren't supposed to be so authoritarian.

For example, under your system of belief, Congressional whistleblower protections are unconstitutional too.

That's bad.

 

[martybegan]

Hey, that's your belief. Just don't pretend that Trump isn't EXPANDING the authority of the presidency and exercising AUTHORITY over things that prior presidents didn't.

You believe the president can fire anyone for any reason at any time.

That's bad for the country. We aren't supposed to be so authoritarian.

For example, under your system of belief, Congressional whistleblower protections are unconstitutional too.

That's bad.

He's exercising power that was always there, but previous President's lacked the will to use.

That's what the Constitution says when it makes him the only person in the Executive actually given any power.

Not so. Congress is under a different article of the Constitution.

 

[marvin martian]

Hey, that's your belief. Just don't pretend that Trump isn't EXPANDING the authority of the presidency and exercising AUTHORITY over things that prior presidents didn't.

You believe the president can fire anyone for any reason at any time.

That's bad for the country. We aren't supposed to be so authoritarian.

For example, under your system of belief, Congressional whistleblower protections are unconstitutional too.

That's bad.

You can't be trusted:

 

[DigitalDrifter]

While peace is breaking out in the middle east, they are heralding Trump as the one who put it all together.
Meanwhile back here at home, the leftists will continue to embarrass us with their weekly tantrums in the streets.

 

[citygator]

‘No Kings’ Has Republicans in Disarray

Why GOP lawmakers are spreading fear about the upcoming rally.

www.thebulwark.com

The utterly insipid demonstrations planned for Saturday are a great manifestation of U.S. Leftism in this, the era of Trump. They have no agenda, no plan, nothing to offer the American people other than a sophomoric hate for the President who roundly defeated them last November. To call their movement, "No Kings" is tantamount to saying, "Up with the Good; Down with the Bad." No one can argue with it, but it is meaningless.

The linked article tries to make the case that No Kings has the Republicans quaking in their figurative boots, but I don't see any of that. When your adversary is making an ass of itself speaking, the best strategy is simply to let it speak.

Our Beloved President, bringing a private-sector resume to the ultimate public sector executive position, is exploring the limits of Presidential powers, expecting to be shot down in some instances and successful in others. This is not "authoritarianism," it is good management - a strategy that will benefit everyone who succeeds him in the Presidency.

My older sister (86 and counting) participated with dozens of her bunkmates at an independent living facility in the last No Kings rally, and she was proud as punch for the experience. I figure she was a bit too old for the anti-war protests during Vietnam and she's finally finding a "cause" that she can protest about, even though nobody can articulate its meaning other than, "We are pissed off that we lost the last election."

I used to think that Leftists would never be able to surpass the stupidity of the Occupy protests, but I admit I was wrong. It is interesting that they didn't plan this for a Friday. Essentially none of them work for a living, and it would have been much more disruptive.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

‘No Kings’ Has Republicans in Disarray

Why GOP lawmakers are spreading fear about the upcoming rally.

www.thebulwark.com

The utterly insipid demonstrations planned for Saturday are a great manifestation of U.S. Leftism in this, the era of Trump. They have no agenda, no plan, nothing to offer the American people other than a sophomoric hate for the President who roundly defeated them last November. To call their movement, "No Kings" is tantamount to saying, "Up with the Good; Down with the Bad." No one can argue with it, but it is meaningless.

The linked article tries to make the case that No Kings has the Republicans quaking in their figurative boots, but I don't see any of that. When your adversary is making an ass of itself speaking, the best strategy is simply to let it speak.

Our Beloved President, bringing a private-sector resume to the ultimate public sector executive position, is exploring the limits of Presidential powers, expecting to be shot down in some instances and successful in others. This is not "authoritarianism," it is good management - a strategy that will benefit everyone who succeeds him in the Presidency.

My older sister (86 and counting) participated with dozens of her bunkmates at an independent living facility in the last No Kings rally, and she was proud as punch for the experience. I figure she was a bit too old for the anti-war protests during Vietnam and she's finally finding a "cause" that she can protest about, even though nobody can articulate its meaning other than, "We are pissed off that we lost the last election."

I used to think that Leftists would never be able to surpass the stupidity of the Occupy protests, but I admit I was wrong. It is interesting that they didn't plan this for a Friday. Essentially none of them work for a living, and it would have been much more disruptive.

So, that's why the protests are on a Saturday?

 

[Marener]

He's exercising power that was always there, but previous President's lacked the will to use.

That's what the Constitution says when it makes him the only person in the Executive actually given any power.

Not so. Congress is under a different article of the Constitution.

Other presidents thought the country was better if the president didn't have the authority to fire anyone at any time for any reason. That's because other presidents weren't so authoritarian and respected Congress putting limits on their power.

This president refuses to accept those limits, which makes him the most authoritarian president we've had in the modern era.

 

[Zincwarrior]

until the next one.

 

[martybegan]

Other presidents thought the country was better if the president didn't have the authority to fire anyone at any time for any reason. That's because other presidents weren't so authoritarian and respected Congress putting limits on their power.

This president refuses to accept those limits, which makes him the most authoritarian president we've had in the modern era.

Nope, Congress thought they could be slick and assume executive power with things like the Fed and CFPB. They are wrong.

This President is doing what he was elected to do, and is doing it all perfectly legally.

 

[Marener]

Nope, Congress thought they could be slick and assume executive power with things like the Fed and CFPB. They are wrong.

This President is doing what he was elected to do, and is doing it all perfectly legally.

You elected him to be an authoritarian. That's perfectly clear.

Just to ask again because I'm not sure you answered clearly. Can the president fire a whistleblower in the executive branch even if they were legitimately bringing up something to Congress that they should know about?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Were we free under Biden?... not on youtube twitter or facebook or the media... give me a break... the senile one was the king... we expelled his ass....

The senile one was the court jester. Obama and company were the kings.

 

[martybegan]

You elected him to be an authoritarian. That's perfectly clear.

Just to ask again because I'm not sure you answered clearly. Can the president fire a whistleblower in the executive branch even if they were legitimately bringing up something to Congress that they should know about?

I elected him to do the job he is doing. That you don't like said job doesn't make him Authoritarian.

Did your masters get out the word to you that using "Fascist/Nazi" doesn't work anymore?

The idiot on the Fed Board Trump fired isn't a whistleblower so that doesn't cover her situation. I am not going for your distraction.