This Will Drive the Deep State Nuts: Trump Preparing for a Major House-Cleaning

[martybegan]

So unelected bureaucrats should have the ability to override the elected person placed in the office by the people?

Fuck no.

If what they are being told to do is unconstitutional, then yes.

If they think they are being asked to do unconstitutional things they need to resign and report.

That's just plain stupid. No they should not have to resign because an administration craps on the Constitution.

In your opinion he is "crapping on the Constitution". The fact is you use that as a screen for simple political disagreements, much like the deep staters.

"He"? Are you feeling guilty? I specifically and intentionally made my statement a general statement accusing no one specifically.

We all know what you are talking about, stop trying to be slick.

 

[pknopp]

If what they are being told to do is unconstitutional, then yes.

If they think they are being asked to do unconstitutional things they need to resign and report.

That's just plain stupid. No they should not have to resign because an administration craps on the Constitution.

In your opinion he is "crapping on the Constitution". The fact is you use that as a screen for simple political disagreements, much like the deep staters.

"He"? Are you feeling guilty? I specifically and intentionally made my statement a general statement accusing no one specifically.

We all know what you are talking about, stop trying to be slick.

I said exactly what I meant. The argument was that employee's should quit if an administration instructs them to do something unconstitutional. I said that was stupid. No they should not. They should push back. That goes for any administration at any time.

 

[martybegan]

If they think they are being asked to do unconstitutional things they need to resign and report.

That's just plain stupid. No they should not have to resign because an administration craps on the Constitution.

In your opinion he is "crapping on the Constitution". The fact is you use that as a screen for simple political disagreements, much like the deep staters.

"He"? Are you feeling guilty? I specifically and intentionally made my statement a general statement accusing no one specifically.

We all know what you are talking about, stop trying to be slick.

I said exactly what I meant. The argument was that employee's should quit if an administration instructs them to do something unconstitutional. I said that was stupid. No they should not. They should push back. That goes for any administration at any time.

They do not decide policy. They are supposed to be gears in the machine at that level, nothing more. The people who decide and set up policy are the ones who come in with and are appointed by the President or his own appointees.

And you were trying to be slick, stop denying it.

They should not push back, that is not their purpose.

 

[CowboyTed]

Trump's paranoia is matching that of Kim in Korea. I wonder when he might start executing family members because he thinks they aren't loyal enough, like Kim did.

If you really think he would start using AA guns to mow down his political opponents, then your TDS is terminal.

i don't expect it to happen today, but he has made it clear he admires the behavior of murdering third world dictators.

Lol, that you expect it at all and continue to go with the whole "Trump likes dictators" based on him dealing with them via normal run of the mill diplomacy just shows you have gone off the deep end.

Change your name to Chihuahua, because that's more like your personality, a shaking little dog that pees when confronted.

Well tell us how you are going to identify the 'disloyal'?

 

[CowboyTed]

That's just plain stupid. No they should not have to resign because an administration craps on the Constitution.

In your opinion he is "crapping on the Constitution". The fact is you use that as a screen for simple political disagreements, much like the deep staters.

"He"? Are you feeling guilty? I specifically and intentionally made my statement a general statement accusing no one specifically.

We all know what you are talking about, stop trying to be slick.

I said exactly what I meant. The argument was that employee's should quit if an administration instructs them to do something unconstitutional. I said that was stupid. No they should not. They should push back. That goes for any administration at any time.

They do not decide policy. They are supposed to be gears in the machine at that level, nothing more. The people who decide and set up policy are the ones who come in with and are appointed by the President or his own appointees.

And you were trying to be slick, stop denying it.

They should not push back, that is not their purpose.

This administration has breaking the law as a policy.

 

[martybegan]

Trump's paranoia is matching that of Kim in Korea. I wonder when he might start executing family members because he thinks they aren't loyal enough, like Kim did.

If you really think he would start using AA guns to mow down his political opponents, then your TDS is terminal.

i don't expect it to happen today, but he has made it clear he admires the behavior of murdering third world dictators.

Lol, that you expect it at all and continue to go with the whole "Trump likes dictators" based on him dealing with them via normal run of the mill diplomacy just shows you have gone off the deep end.

Change your name to Chihuahua, because that's more like your personality, a shaking little dog that pees when confronted.

Well tell us how you are going to identify the 'disloyal'?

The ones who don't do their job get canned. Its very simple.

Civil servants are supposed to be cogs in the machine, not policy deciders.

 

[martybegan]

In your opinion he is "crapping on the Constitution". The fact is you use that as a screen for simple political disagreements, much like the deep staters.

"He"? Are you feeling guilty? I specifically and intentionally made my statement a general statement accusing no one specifically.

We all know what you are talking about, stop trying to be slick.

I said exactly what I meant. The argument was that employee's should quit if an administration instructs them to do something unconstitutional. I said that was stupid. No they should not. They should push back. That goes for any administration at any time.

They do not decide policy. They are supposed to be gears in the machine at that level, nothing more. The people who decide and set up policy are the ones who come in with and are appointed by the President or his own appointees.

And you were trying to be slick, stop denying it.

They should not push back, that is not their purpose.

This administration has breaking the law as a policy.

In your TDS addled wibble mind maybe.

 

[pknopp]

That's just plain stupid. No they should not have to resign because an administration craps on the Constitution.

In your opinion he is "crapping on the Constitution". The fact is you use that as a screen for simple political disagreements, much like the deep staters.

"He"? Are you feeling guilty? I specifically and intentionally made my statement a general statement accusing no one specifically.

We all know what you are talking about, stop trying to be slick.

I said exactly what I meant. The argument was that employee's should quit if an administration instructs them to do something unconstitutional. I said that was stupid. No they should not. They should push back. That goes for any administration at any time.

They do not decide policy. They are supposed to be gears in the machine at that level, nothing more. The people who decide and set up policy are the ones who come in with and are appointed by the President or his own appointees.

And you were trying to be slick, stop denying it.

They should not push back, that is not their purpose.

No employee should be asked to do something unconstitutional. Yes, they should push back if they are. Not only that, we should support those who push back and say no but unfortunately we support politics as long as the politics are ours.

Spying by the Obama administration is a perfect example of this. People tried to blow the whistle on this. The government went after them. Snowden finally had to do what he did. The courts ruled against the administration but liars were able to get away with their lies and Snowden is still condemned by many unfortunately.

Now, where was I trying to be "slick"?

 

[martybegan]

In your opinion he is "crapping on the Constitution". The fact is you use that as a screen for simple political disagreements, much like the deep staters.

"He"? Are you feeling guilty? I specifically and intentionally made my statement a general statement accusing no one specifically.

We all know what you are talking about, stop trying to be slick.

I said exactly what I meant. The argument was that employee's should quit if an administration instructs them to do something unconstitutional. I said that was stupid. No they should not. They should push back. That goes for any administration at any time.

They do not decide policy. They are supposed to be gears in the machine at that level, nothing more. The people who decide and set up policy are the ones who come in with and are appointed by the President or his own appointees.

And you were trying to be slick, stop denying it.

They should not push back, that is not their purpose.

No employee should be asked to do something unconstitutional. Yes, they should push back if they are. Not only that, we should support those who push back and say no but unfortunately we support politics as long as the politics are ours.

Spying by the Obama administration is a perfect example of this. People tried to blow the whistle on this. The government went after them. Snowden finally had to do what he did. The courts ruled against the administration but liars were able to get away with their lies and Snowden is still condemned by many unfortunately.

Now, where was I trying to be "slick"?

What they may think is "unconstitutional" is 99% of the time merely a policy disagreement.

Again, they are there to implement policy, not decide it.

 

[pknopp]

"He"? Are you feeling guilty? I specifically and intentionally made my statement a general statement accusing no one specifically.

We all know what you are talking about, stop trying to be slick.

I said exactly what I meant. The argument was that employee's should quit if an administration instructs them to do something unconstitutional. I said that was stupid. No they should not. They should push back. That goes for any administration at any time.

They do not decide policy. They are supposed to be gears in the machine at that level, nothing more. The people who decide and set up policy are the ones who come in with and are appointed by the President or his own appointees.

And you were trying to be slick, stop denying it.

They should not push back, that is not their purpose.

No employee should be asked to do something unconstitutional. Yes, they should push back if they are. Not only that, we should support those who push back and say no but unfortunately we support politics as long as the politics are ours.

Spying by the Obama administration is a perfect example of this. People tried to blow the whistle on this. The government went after them. Snowden finally had to do what he did. The courts ruled against the administration but liars were able to get away with their lies and Snowden is still condemned by many unfortunately.

Now, where was I trying to be "slick"?

What they may think is "unconstitutional" is 99% of the time merely a policy disagreement.

Again, they are there to implement policy, not decide it.

I'm not really interested in your generalizations. I pointed out a specific example.

 

[martybegan]

We all know what you are talking about, stop trying to be slick.

I said exactly what I meant. The argument was that employee's should quit if an administration instructs them to do something unconstitutional. I said that was stupid. No they should not. They should push back. That goes for any administration at any time.

They do not decide policy. They are supposed to be gears in the machine at that level, nothing more. The people who decide and set up policy are the ones who come in with and are appointed by the President or his own appointees.

And you were trying to be slick, stop denying it.

They should not push back, that is not their purpose.

No employee should be asked to do something unconstitutional. Yes, they should push back if they are. Not only that, we should support those who push back and say no but unfortunately we support politics as long as the politics are ours.

Spying by the Obama administration is a perfect example of this. People tried to blow the whistle on this. The government went after them. Snowden finally had to do what he did. The courts ruled against the administration but liars were able to get away with their lies and Snowden is still condemned by many unfortunately.

Now, where was I trying to be "slick"?

What they may think is "unconstitutional" is 99% of the time merely a policy disagreement.

Again, they are there to implement policy, not decide it.

I'm not really interested in your generalizations. I pointed out a specific example.

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

 

[CowboyTed]

Trump's paranoia is matching that of Kim in Korea. I wonder when he might start executing family members because he thinks they aren't loyal enough, like Kim did.

If you really think he would start using AA guns to mow down his political opponents, then your TDS is terminal.

i don't expect it to happen today, but he has made it clear he admires the behavior of murdering third world dictators.

Lol, that you expect it at all and continue to go with the whole "Trump likes dictators" based on him dealing with them via normal run of the mill diplomacy just shows you have gone off the deep end.

Change your name to Chihuahua, because that's more like your personality, a shaking little dog that pees when confronted.

Well tell us how you are going to identify the 'disloyal'?

The ones who don't do their job get canned. Its very simple.

Civil servants are supposed to be cogs in the machine, not policy deciders.

But they have not said that... That would be a job performance review, that is OK...

They have specifically said 'disloyal'...

I will point out and nobody disputes this the President asked a foreign leader for a favour of of announcing an investigation into a political rival while withholding Congressional Aid which he was breaking the law by not giving. Vindman saw the law being broken (aid was not been given) and came forward to testify.
That is the law and it is Vindman's duty to report the law been broken.

Are you saying this new loyalty is to ignore the law been broken?

 

[martybegan]

If you really think he would start using AA guns to mow down his political opponents, then your TDS is terminal.

i don't expect it to happen today, but he has made it clear he admires the behavior of murdering third world dictators.

Lol, that you expect it at all and continue to go with the whole "Trump likes dictators" based on him dealing with them via normal run of the mill diplomacy just shows you have gone off the deep end.

Change your name to Chihuahua, because that's more like your personality, a shaking little dog that pees when confronted.

Well tell us how you are going to identify the 'disloyal'?

The ones who don't do their job get canned. Its very simple.

Civil servants are supposed to be cogs in the machine, not policy deciders.

But they have not said that... That would be a job performance review, that is OK...

They have specifically said 'disloyal'...

I will point out and nobody disputes this the President asked a foreign leader for a favour of of announcing an investigation into a political rival while withholding Congressional Aid which he was breaking the law by not giving. Vindman saw the law being broken (aid was not been given) and came forward to testify.
That is the law and it is Vindman's duty to report the law been broken.

Are you saying this new loyalty is to ignore the law been broken?

Or he negotiated with a foreign leader over aid regarding a potential criminal investigation of a US citizen, a high profile one. It's all in the language soi boi.

 

[rightwinger]

So you want people to do things they think are illegal but haven't been specifically told are illegal?

I love the conversations we find ourselves in as a result of this president. The questions we are having to ask ourselves are just astounding.

If they think they are illegal they should quit. If they just disagree politically they should shut up and do their fucking job.

Don't blame the President, blame career civil servants who think they outright the President.

They don’t have to quit. That is why we created a Civil Service. To protect the workforce from political pressure and retaliation.

Trump seems to be the only President who thinks the workforce must be loyal to his needs

When they start taking political sides, it defeats the purpose of the laws.

They are supposed to be cogs in the machine, nothing more, implementing political policy decided by political appointees, appointed by the only Constitutional Authority in the branch, i.e. the President.

If civil servants are going to start taking sides, we need to go back to the spoils system.

A scientist providing findings that do not support the presidents policy that global warming is a myth is not taking sides.

A weatherman properly reporting the path of a hurricane is not taking sides

Your spin on it is taking sides.

And anyone who runs to science that also claims a man can turn into an actual woman is fucking comical.

Science has found that sexuality is more complex than male/female

 

[pknopp]

I said exactly what I meant. The argument was that employee's should quit if an administration instructs them to do something unconstitutional. I said that was stupid. No they should not. They should push back. That goes for any administration at any time.

They do not decide policy. They are supposed to be gears in the machine at that level, nothing more. The people who decide and set up policy are the ones who come in with and are appointed by the President or his own appointees.

And you were trying to be slick, stop denying it.

They should not push back, that is not their purpose.

No employee should be asked to do something unconstitutional. Yes, they should push back if they are. Not only that, we should support those who push back and say no but unfortunately we support politics as long as the politics are ours.

Spying by the Obama administration is a perfect example of this. People tried to blow the whistle on this. The government went after them. Snowden finally had to do what he did. The courts ruled against the administration but liars were able to get away with their lies and Snowden is still condemned by many unfortunately.

Now, where was I trying to be "slick"?

What they may think is "unconstitutional" is 99% of the time merely a policy disagreement.

Again, they are there to implement policy, not decide it.

I'm not really interested in your generalizations. I pointed out a specific example.

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

 

[rightwinger]

That is up to the independent inspectors to determine. Trump is exploiting Civil Service law and bullying workers into being afraid to report on him.

He is firing intelligence officials who do not agree with his conspiracy theories
He threatens weather service employees who rely on scientific weather predictions and contradict his personal weather predictions
He threatens scientists who report there is global warming
He fires State Department employees for following existing international laws

He sets the policy, not unelected wonks. If they don't like it they can resign. if they can find actual unconstitutional actions they can report it.

And when the policy says you should tell people in Alabama that a hurricane is headed their way when you know scientific evidence says it is not?

When the policy says scientists are not allowed to report evidence of a global warming threat?

When the policy says you must cover for a president who is offering military aid in return for personal favors?

The first item is not policy.

The 2nd is a political matter, and the president decides the politics.

The 3rd item has been found to be meritless and over.

A person doing his job is not partisan

Just because a meteorologist reports the truth is not breaking policy. Trump demanded that they support his misstatement
Scientific study and conclusions is not political.
Trumps phone call was not found to acceptable.....only not impeachable.

More spin just to show off your TDS.

Another fine example of Trumpbots claiming that reporting what Trump says or does is TDS

 

[rightwinger]

TDS! TDS! TDS!

 

[martybegan]

If they think they are illegal they should quit. If they just disagree politically they should shut up and do their fucking job.

Don't blame the President, blame career civil servants who think they outright the President.

They don’t have to quit. That is why we created a Civil Service. To protect the workforce from political pressure and retaliation.

Trump seems to be the only President who thinks the workforce must be loyal to his needs

When they start taking political sides, it defeats the purpose of the laws.

They are supposed to be cogs in the machine, nothing more, implementing political policy decided by political appointees, appointed by the only Constitutional Authority in the branch, i.e. the President.

If civil servants are going to start taking sides, we need to go back to the spoils system.

A scientist providing findings that do not support the presidents policy that global warming is a myth is not taking sides.

A weatherman properly reporting the path of a hurricane is not taking sides

Your spin on it is taking sides.

And anyone who runs to science that also claims a man can turn into an actual woman is fucking comical.

Science has found that sexuality is more complex than male/female

Bullshit science has found that. Biology says otherwise. At best you can turn a man into a cheap copy of a woman and vice versa.

 

[martybegan]

They do not decide policy. They are supposed to be gears in the machine at that level, nothing more. The people who decide and set up policy are the ones who come in with and are appointed by the President or his own appointees.

And you were trying to be slick, stop denying it.

They should not push back, that is not their purpose.

No employee should be asked to do something unconstitutional. Yes, they should push back if they are. Not only that, we should support those who push back and say no but unfortunately we support politics as long as the politics are ours.

Spying by the Obama administration is a perfect example of this. People tried to blow the whistle on this. The government went after them. Snowden finally had to do what he did. The courts ruled against the administration but liars were able to get away with their lies and Snowden is still condemned by many unfortunately.

Now, where was I trying to be "slick"?

What they may think is "unconstitutional" is 99% of the time merely a policy disagreement.

Again, they are there to implement policy, not decide it.

I'm not really interested in your generalizations. I pointed out a specific example.

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

 

[martybegan]

He sets the policy, not unelected wonks. If they don't like it they can resign. if they can find actual unconstitutional actions they can report it.

And when the policy says you should tell people in Alabama that a hurricane is headed their way when you know scientific evidence says it is not?

When the policy says scientists are not allowed to report evidence of a global warming threat?

When the policy says you must cover for a president who is offering military aid in return for personal favors?

The first item is not policy.

The 2nd is a political matter, and the president decides the politics.

The 3rd item has been found to be meritless and over.

A person doing his job is not partisan

Just because a meteorologist reports the truth is not breaking policy. Trump demanded that they support his misstatement
Scientific study and conclusions is not political.
Trumps phone call was not found to acceptable.....only not impeachable.

More spin just to show off your TDS.

Another fine example of Trumpbots claiming that reporting what Trump says or does is TDS

It's the way you "report" it.

You aren't the boy who cried wolf, you are the boy who cried wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf
wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf