Politics Immigrants and refugees

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
crandc said:
The Attorney General is not the president's servant. If he/she genuinely believes there is a question of legality, he/she is legally, morally, and professionally obligated to act accordingly. To hold, to investigate, not to be a sycophant.

I was insubordinate once. Not, obviously, as publicly and not on something with international significance. My boss ordered me to falsify data by verifying something that was not there. I refused. He screamed, threatened, called me names, ordered me to do it, told me there would be "very severe consequences" if I continued to be insubordinate (his word). In alternate facts, he insisted the condition I was ordered to verify really DID exist, it just could not be observed. I said I would not document something that could not be observed because if it could not be observed I had no way of knowing if it existed, obviously. He did what Trump did, in small; ordered another person to do what I refused. The other person confided in me that he had documented what he did not observe out of fear. He had an H1B visa. I suggested an investigation, saying either the equipment was malfunctioning or the procedure was incorrect. I suggested a third person at the company might be able to resolve it as he had more knowledge of the equipment. The manager refused, said there was no problem, the problem was me.

After the other employee was cowed into falsifying data, I talked to this third person myself. He told me the manager had gone to him and ordered him to tell me how I was wrong. He said I was not wrong and explained why we could not possibly have observed what the manager said he had observed.

On my own I corrected the error in the procedure. For reason for change I said error in previous version. The manager said he would not sign the new version unless I changed that to "update". I refused.

The manager quit shortly thereafter, he had gotten a better job by claiming my accomplishments as his. As soon as he was gone they hired a more qualified person and laid off both me and the guy who had resolved the error.

And yeah, I fucking well would do it again. Because I was right and he was wrong.
Click to expand...

There's a distinction between being an employee and being a political appointee. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for any reason. The AG has the obligation to act in accordance with the Constitution and law. If Ms. Yates had a concern about the legality of the EO, her obligation would have been to inform the President of what her concerns were and suggest ways that it could be amended to address those concerns. If her concerns were on personal ethical grounds, her obligation would be to inform the President of those concerns and, if they could not reach a resolution, to resign her position. She didn't do either of those things. Instead she sent a letter to JD lawyers telling them not to enforce the EO or defend it in court, stating, "I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful." That was political grandstanding. She deserved to get fired, IMO.
 
e_blazer said:
There's a distinction between being an employee and being a political appointee. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for any reason. The AG has the obligation to act in accordance with the Constitution and law. If Ms. Yates had a concern about the legality of the EO, her obligation would have been to inform the President of what her concerns were and suggest ways that it could be amended to address those concerns. If her concerns were on personal ethical grounds, her obligation would be to inform the President of those concerns and, if they could not reach a resolution, to resign her position. She didn't do either of those things. Instead she sent a letter to JD lawyers telling them not to enforce the EO or defend it in court, stating, "I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful." That was political grandstanding. She deserved to get fired, IMO.
Click to expand...

She was going to get fired anyway.
 
e_blazer said:
There's a distinction between being an employee and being a political appointee. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for any reason. The AG has the obligation to act in accordance with the Constitution and law. If Ms. Yates had a concern about the legality of the EO, her obligation would have been to inform the President of what her concerns were and suggest ways that it could be amended to address those concerns. If her concerns were on personal ethical grounds, her obligation would be to inform the President of those concerns and, if they could not reach a resolution, to resign her position. She didn't do either of those things. Instead she sent a letter to JD lawyers telling them not to enforce the EO or defend it in court, stating, "I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful." That was political grandstanding. She deserved to get fired, IMO.
Click to expand...
Yes, had he consulted her. But he consulted no one in the relevant departments. Instead he took input from white supremacists and anti-Semites. Her only option was to act after the fact.
 
crandc said:
Yes, had he consulted her. But he consulted no one in the relevant departments. Instead he took input from white supremacists and anti-Semites. Her only option was to act after the fact.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that the phone line from the Justice Department to the White House is operational. The effort she put into the letter to her staff could have been used to talk with Trump and express her concerns. That would have been the ethical thing to do. It probably would have still ended with her getting the axe, but at least she'd have the moral high ground.

This column by Megan McArdle on the topic is pretty good: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/i...w_the_left_has.html#incart_river_mobile_index
 
Not sure if this was posted before because I'm NOT sifting through this thread...

Nike CEO condemns Trump refugee ban as threat to values

Dear all,

Nike believes in a world where everyone celebrates the power of diversity. Regardless of whether Or how you worship. where you come from Or who you love, everyone's individual experience is what make us stronger as a whole.

Those values are being threatened by the recent executive order in the U.S. banning refugees, as well as visitors, from seven Muslim-majority countries. This is a policy we don't support. And I know we're all asking what this means for our future. for our friends. Our families and Our broader community.

Today. I'm thinking of everyone who is impacted. like Sir MO Farah. Mo. four-time Olympic gold medalist. now lives in Oregon with his family. He was born in Somalia and moved to Britain when he was eight. He has dedicated his life to competing for his adopted country.

And yet, MO fears that he may not be allowed to return from his training camp in Ethiopia to see his wife and children in Portland. I was moved by the powerful statement MO shared this morning.

What MO will always have — what the entire Nike family can always count on — is the support of this company. We will do everything in our power to ensure the safety of every member Of Our family: Our colleagues. Our athletes and their loved ones.

Nike stands together against bigotry and any form of discrimination. We've learned that On the field Of play. where fairness and mutual respect are the rule, not the exception. Now. more than ever. let's stand up for our values and remain open and inclusive as a brand and as a company.

We are at our best when we recognize the value of our diverse community.

Thanks,

Mark Parker
Chairman. President and CEO,
NIKE, Inc.
 
Last edited:
Denny Crane said:
No to all of the above.

20170130_AG1_0.jpg
Click to expand...

Then why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list? They committed 9/11.
 
All due respect, e_blazer, you are wrong. Ms. Yates found out after the fact.

The Attorney General is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate but he/she does not work for the president, he/she works for "we the people" and has an obligation to not be a rubber stamp.

You may have seen a video now circulating on line. When she was having her Senate confirmation hearings to be Deputy Attorney General, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, yes, the nominee to be new Attorney General, grilled her on how she would act if President Obama issued an order she thought was not legal. Ms. Yates said she would follow the law and the Constitution. Senator Sessions was dissatisfied with her answer, which he thought was not strong enough. He wanted a more solid assurance that Ms. Yates would not go along with anything President Obama did that hypothetically was not legal.

But now?
She did not simply have a disagreement or a different interpretation of the law, she is "weak" and "betrayed" the Justice Department.
Because to Trump anyone who disagrees with or challenges him is an enemy.

It's another example of Trump's poor management; remember, this was his selling point despite all the bankruptcies, business fraud, cheating workers and contractors, he is the best manager. A good manager gets information before acting. A good manager gets input from others who may have a different point of view. A good manager recognizes he/she does not know everything. A good manager treats people with respect.
 
crandc said:
Yes, had he consulted her. But he consulted no one in the relevant departments. Instead he took input from white supremacists and anti-Semites. Her only option was to act after the fact.
Click to expand...

He did consult the relative departments. Someone is lying that he didn't. Not you, you're just repeating it.
 
Hey, McDonald's had to close a bunch of stores because the immigrants went on strike again.

Win win eventually, illegals leave and we McDonald's hires fatties that work there instead of eating there. Or at least work, whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top