Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:12 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422

Kellyanne Conway should be fired?


According to US special counsel office. (the office is not related to Mueller)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/polit...act/index.html

There is zero chance Trump will fire her so this is pretty much a waste of time.
  #2  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:15 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Sometimes just getting things out there on the record is the best you can do. At least then future generations will know that we weren't all morons.

Last edited by bobot; 06-13-2019 at 01:16 PM.
  #3  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:19 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,262
Not a waste of time, depending on how you look at it.

The point is, she should be fired.

This tactic of the Trump "administration" to politicize everything, to attribute partisan motives to all his wrongdoing, is always his first line of defense. It is so ubiquitous that I don't think most Americans even notice it anymore. He basically has persuaded the citizenry that as president, it's perfectly ok to represent only the people who support you -- not the entire population of the US.

The whole purpose of the Hatch Act is to prevent this. Many of Trump's advisors engage in violations of it daily, and those violations should be pointed out every single day -- irrespective of whether Trump does the right thing and acts on them. Which, as you point out, he will not. They are violations nonetheless.

Do you care? I hope you do.
  #4  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:23 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
Trump appointed the guy who heads that office , so that guy will probably be fired instead of Conway
  #5  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:30 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
According to US special counsel office. (the office is not related to Mueller)
Incoming tweet where Trump blame Mueller for this...
  #6  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:39 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,010
She should be impeached.
  #7  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:49 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,382
Come the revolution, comrades...
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #8  
Old 06-13-2019, 02:07 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Not a waste of time, depending on how you look at it.

The point is, she should be fired.

This tactic of the Trump "administration" to politicize everything, to attribute partisan motives to all his wrongdoing, is always his first line of defense. It is so ubiquitous that I don't think most Americans even notice it anymore. He basically has persuaded the citizenry that as president, it's perfectly ok to represent only the people who support you -- not the entire population of the US.

The whole purpose of the Hatch Act is to prevent this. Many of Trump's advisors engage in violations of it daily, and those violations should be pointed out every single day -- irrespective of whether Trump does the right thing and acts on them. Which, as you point out, he will not. They are violations nonetheless.

Do you care? I hope you do.
Yeah its good to remind people now and again that this sort of shit is not OK. Also that spending large portions of a speech commemorating, say, the boy scouts attacking your political opponents should not be viewed as normal.
  #9  
Old 06-13-2019, 02:28 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,529
Quote:
Quoth Bijou Drains:

There is zero chance Trump will fire her...
There's zero chance he'll fire her for the right reasons. But just look at the turnover in his administration. Nobody lasts long.
  #10  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:18 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,911
Speaking of which, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is out at the end of the month.

We should have a 'death pool' for persons in the Trump Administration.
  #11  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:30 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,489
This is an unpresidented development.
  #12  
Old 06-14-2019, 10:59 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,629
Perhaps Ms. Conway should make a statement about how there's no controlling legal authority.
  #13  
Old 06-14-2019, 11:39 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
There's zero chance he'll fire her for the right reasons. But just look at the turnover in his administration. Nobody lasts long.
Except, ya know, the subject of this thread who has been with him since he won the nomination.
  #14  
Old 06-14-2019, 12:05 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Perhaps Ms. Conway should make a statement about how there's no controlling legal authority.
Does the Hatch Act now include an exemption for White House employees?
  #15  
Old 06-14-2019, 12:58 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Perhaps Ms. Conway should make a statement about how there's no controlling legal authority.
One thing about the Trump administration is that we can forever put to rest the claim that the GOP is the party of law and order. That is deader than a doornail now.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #16  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:08 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,382
Nonsense... it's the party of what they say today is law and order*.

*Subject to change without prior notice. All previous laws are orders are null and void.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 06-14-2019 at 01:09 PM.
  #17  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:43 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Perhaps Ms. Conway should make a statement about how there's no controlling legal authority.
Don't worry, the white house already did.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthel...mized/full.pdf

It's bullshit (obviously) but it's enough for plausible deniability - at least for those truly motivated to deny.
  #18  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:51 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,554
The guy we hired to make sure our laws are enforced says he won't do anything to enforce our laws.
  #19  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:15 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Don't worry, the white house already did.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthel...mized/full.pdf

It's bullshit (obviously) but it's enough for plausible deniability - at least for those truly motivated to deny.
11 page response? I figured it would just be "F**k you, we don't care"
  #20  
Old 06-14-2019, 03:05 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,959
Legal briefs are sometimes unnecessarily prolix, but I think that's what the letter boils down to.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #21  
Old 06-14-2019, 05:59 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Does the Hatch Act now include an exemption for White House employees?
Not that I'm aware of.

But which one is a more serious offense, in your view?

Making disparaging comments about politicians on tv, or fundraising from the White House?
  #22  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:12 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Or...murr-derr?
  #23  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:45 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,370
If the current occupant had any brains at all, he would announce that she is transitioning to his campaign team. That way, she would be out of her federal role, and maintain her basic responsibilities. Then they could spin it that this was the plan all along, no they didn't bow to any pressures, blah blah blorp-di-blorp fffffffffft. But they're not that savvy. (She would probably get paid heaps more in that capacity anyway.)
  #24  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:55 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Not that I'm aware of.

But which one is a more serious offense, in your view?

Making disparaging comments about politicians on tv, or fundraising from the White House?
Why are you defending this?

No, seriously - why?
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #25  
Old 06-14-2019, 07:10 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Not that I'm aware of.

But which one is a more serious offense, in your view?

Making disparaging comments about politicians on tv, or fundraising from the White House?
"Hey! Look over there!"

  #26  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:07 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Why are you defending this?

No, seriously - why?
Rules #1 and #2 of Tribe Club:

When their side does something wrong, we talk about that.

When our side does something wrong, we talk about the time when their side did something wrong.
  #27  
Old 06-15-2019, 12:24 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Rules #1 and #2 of Tribe Club:

When their side does something wrong, we talk about that.

When our side does something wrong, we talk about the time when their side did something wrong.
You didn't answer the question. In your opinion, which is the more serious offense?
  #28  
Old 06-15-2019, 12:30 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You didn't answer the question. In your opinion, which is the more serious offense?
"No, really! Look over there!"

  #29  
Old 06-15-2019, 01:09 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
11 page response? I figured it would just be "F**k you, we don't care"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Legal briefs are sometimes unnecessarily prolix, but I think that's what the letter boils down to.
Yup. Still, one suspects that they had it all ready to go given the length and quality of the writing.

I've seen one or two of Cipollone's denial letters, before this.Usually he just gets straight to the point, where the point is in essence, "Get off my lawn." He's the legal equivalent of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, he gives two shits about what you want. Unless you've got a guy with a gun, he's just going to ignore every request, throw out some nonsense that makes it clear that he's stonewalling, and add in a few jabs to make sure that you know that you're fucked (short of getting a guy with a gun to come execute a warrant against him).

And, given the difficulty of sending armed LEO's with warrants into the White House, Cipollone is basically correct. They're all wasting his time. Trump's protected by the Republican Senate. Cipollone is protected by Executive Privilege and pardon power.

At some point, the Supreme Court is going to order the White House to turn over something that Trump doesn't want to, and we're going to get into a real uncomfortable situation. Fundamentally, the will of the Supreme Court is executed through the White House. If the Executive isn't willing to execute, then that renders everything they decide moot. The only out is impeachment. So again, minus the political will to impeach, Trump and his crew, legally, don't have to do jack shit ever, period. To the extent that offering legal responses back is even worth doing, it's just because it's funny to watch people fighting it like they think the law matters.

It's basically the same principal that Putin uses. Laws, kindness, reasonableness, etc. are all just handicaps for the person who takes them on and, by extension, that person is an idiot and deserves to have their handicap pointed out to them, be mocked for it, and then taken advantage of because they stick to it.

It's the power of the troll to defeat the uptight person who needs to loosen their panties and get a life.
  #30  
Old 06-15-2019, 03:01 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You didn't answer the question.
Because it was a weak-ass diversionary tactic.
  #31  
Old 06-15-2019, 07:41 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Sometimes just getting things out there on the record is the best you can do. At least then future generations will know that we weren't all morons.
Absolutely correct. It's important for the bureaucracies to assert their power and to force Trump's administration to respond to it. Just like it's important for House committees to request records, documents, and testimony from individuals -- make them refuse on the record, and then take it to the courts. Make them refuse to comply with court orders. Over time, it might start to sink in for some people. Or it might not - it might take longer. The point is, if the rule of law is to live, if democracy is to live, people have to manifest their desire to keep it alive.
  #32  
Old 06-15-2019, 07:46 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Why are you defending this?

No, seriously - why?
Actually, I'm glad D'Anconia wrote it because it probably reflects how many conservatives and even less enthusiastic Trump supporters feel. A lot of people assume that all of this is just politics, that it's just what politicians do. And in a sense, yes, it is. But the sheer scale of it all, whether it's Conway using public office to throw herself into political contests or whether it's Trump himself denying what cameras and mics clearly caught him saying, is breathtaking.
  #33  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:17 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
This application of the Hatch Act is not only absurd but IMHO is a violation of the First Amendment. Sure we can prohibit fundraising and political patronage, but it seems silly that a president can say something from the Oval Office or from the White House lawn, but if his or her spokesperson, you know, the person whose job it is to speak on behalf of the president, says exactly the same thing it is illegal.

Such a reading of the law is simply silly, has been supposedly violated by Democratic and Republican administrations throughout the years, serves no valid purpose, and is likely unconstitutional. So color me not outraged, even when the Obama administration did it.
  #34  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:29 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This application of the Hatch Act is not only absurd but IMHO is a violation of the First Amendment.
Is there an application of the Hatch Act which isn't a "violation" of the First Amendment? I do believe that it is entirely a restriction on ones right to make political statements. There is no other application. So if, in your mind, this application is in conflict with the First Amendment, then the Hatch Act itself is simply unconstitutional.

Obviously, I could write an explanation of why I believe it is Constitutional, but I don't really need to because there are people who do that for our country, called the Justices of the Supreme Court. Likely, someone has posed them the question, so let's Google that.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Supreme+Court+o...irst+amendment

Might I inquire what it says?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-15-2019 at 02:30 PM.
  #35  
Old 06-15-2019, 03:17 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This application of the Hatch Act is not only absurd but IMHO is a violation of the First Amendment.
Is this the part where I have to explain to a lawyer that people working for the government regularly suffer limitations in their right to free speech when working in their official capacity?

This is exactly the kind of shit the Hatch Act exists to combat. Not as severe as the original impetus, but absolutely the same kind of offense.

You do know that your claim here runs directly contrary to the law as stated and the jurisprudence of multiple SCOTUS cases, right?

I cannot help but repeat my previous statement to D'Anconia (as of yet unanswered): Why are you defending this? No, seriously - why?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-15-2019 at 03:18 PM.
  #36  
Old 06-15-2019, 03:33 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The point is, if the rule of law is to live, if democracy is to live, people have to manifest their desire to keep it alive.
Jdging by the number of people I see violating traffic laws every day, by the number I know commit tax fraud every year, by the number of businesses that violate wage and labor laws and nothing is done, etc., coupled with what we see our government leaders doing currently & the message that sends to average Americans.... I'd say Americans don't really like the rule of law. It's inconvenient.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 06-15-2019 at 03:35 PM.
  #37  
Old 06-15-2019, 05:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So color me not outraged, even when the Obama administration did it.
Which Obama officials contravened the Hatch Act?
  #38  
Old 06-15-2019, 05:18 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Such a reading of the law is simply silly, has been supposedly violated by Democratic and Republican administrations throughout the years, serves no valid purpose, and is likely unconstitutional. So color me not outraged, even when the Obama administration did it.
Maybe Republicans should do the right thing instead of looking for excuses to do the wrong thing.
  #39  
Old 06-15-2019, 06:14 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Which Obama officials contravened the Hatch Act?
I'm not familiar with the source but here are two:

Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro

According to the article, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was also being investigated until she resigned.

Don't take my reply as having any opinion in the matter. This issue does not raise the needle on my give a shit meter.
  #40  
Old 06-15-2019, 06:59 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Is there an application of the Hatch Act which isn't a "violation" of the First Amendment? I do believe that it is entirely a restriction on ones right to make political statements. There is no other application. So if, in your mind, this application is in conflict with the First Amendment, then the Hatch Act itself is simply unconstitutional.

Obviously, I could write an explanation of why I believe it is Constitutional, but I don't really need to because there are people who do that for our country, called the Justices of the Supreme Court. Likely, someone has posed them the question, so let's Google that.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Supreme+Court+o...irst+amendment

Might I inquire what it says?
Just for the benefit of anyone who doesn't like clicking links - for whatever reason - I looked it up. Here's what I found (from the wiki):

Quote:
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947),[1] is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939, as amended in 1940, does not violate the First, Fifth, Ninth, or Tenth amendments to U.S. Constitution.[2]
.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #41  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:45 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I cannot help but repeat my previous statement to D'Anconia (as of yet unanswered): Why are you defending this? No, seriously - why?
Why did your side defend Al Gore? No, seriously - why?
  #42  
Old 06-16-2019, 12:06 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Why did your side defend Al Gore? No, seriously - why?
At this point I think we can assume that you have no intention of answering a direct question that pertains to the subject of this thread.
  #43  
Old 06-16-2019, 12:25 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You didn't answer the question. In your opinion, which is the more serious offense?
Fundraising from the White House is far worse and Trump's use of the office to spread conspiracy theories around the caravan went beyond unethical to toxic waste and is among one of the more clearly impeachable offenses that he has committed.

That said, all crimes are crimes and Conway committed one. She should be removed from her position. It's the Oath of the President to uphold the law, and that's what he has to do. If he doesn't, it's another impeachable offense.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-16-2019 at 12:27 AM.
  #44  
Old 06-16-2019, 09:29 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
At this point I think we can assume that you have no intention of answering a direct question that pertains to the subject of this thread.
Her contributions to debates are limited to drive-by comments, facile questions, and pointing fingers. Strangely, the question you are replying to is probably her most substantive question ever posted, and yet itís just a pure straw man.

Iím in favor of enforcing the Hatch Act, as are most other people, but as long as she can find one person on ďour sideĒ who disagrees, they speak for us. Meanwhile, of course, it would be totally offensive to her if anyone implied that Trumpís neonazi brigade has anything to do with her positions. Which, of course, they do not.

What we see here is a rhetorical vermin trap: when rats can be found in society, the can be presumed only to be going in one direction, away from the speaker; in this case, DíAnconia.
  #45  
Old 06-16-2019, 09:36 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,010
By the way, on the larger topic, I once had a lobbyist offer to do some low-grade favor for me. I donít remember exactly what it was, I think it was an offer of some baseball tickets or something like that, but Iím excess of gift limits.

I said no, I canít accept that offer. This person literally used the phrase ďno controlling legal authorityĒ in trying to cajole me to take him up on the offer. I decided at that point to minimize any future contact with that person.

Around a year or two later, the firm he worked for was raided by the FBI and some people (not this guy in particular) went to prison for much bigger violations of law. I cheered as justice was served to what was clearly a corrupt organization.

What I took from that is that if an organization canít uphold ethics on small things, they canít hold the line against big things. Thatís why Kellyanne and this whole Administration needs to go. (Well, reason 492, anyway.)
  #46  
Old 06-16-2019, 10:50 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,860
Some folks here are looking at the Hatch Act through the wrong end of the telescope. It isn't about "taking away" the rights of some public employees. It's about people voluntarily surrendering those rights for the privilege of serving is those positions. You know the rules going in and by going in you agree to follow them.
  #47  
Old 06-16-2019, 11:38 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,994

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Why did your side defend Al Gore? No, seriously - why?
This thread could easily spawn interesting discussion. Things like, is the Hatch Act good law? Should it be repealed? Does it violate the 1st amendment? Is what Conway did in violation of it? Should certain executive office personnel be exempt from it? Will there be consequences if it can be demonstrated that it was violated? Is there a history of violating it over some number of years or past administrations? All of those could be interesting discussion topics. Instead of that, you've chosen to engage in this type of JAQing off.

It's expected a certain amount of partisanship in the Elections forum, so I'm typically more open to the petty needling that partisanship engenders. I also don't think it's trolling per se, since I don't see this as posting solely to get a rise out of people. But this post as well as your others here is beyond simple partisan sniping and is an anchor on this thread.

As such, I'm directing you to no longer post in this thread. Others will not address or respond to your comments in this thread.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 06-16-2019 at 11:38 AM.
  #48  
Old 06-16-2019, 11:57 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Some folks here are looking at the Hatch Act through the wrong end of the telescope. It isn't about "taking away" the rights of some public employees. It's about people voluntarily surrendering those rights for the privilege of serving is those positions. You know the rules going in and by going in you agree to follow them.
Yeah. I mean, you'd really think an honest-to-god lawyer wouldn't make this mistake. It boggles the mind how one could be a lawyer, speak from one's authority as a lawyer, and get something so simple so wrong. I can't really think of a reason why.

Actually, I can. This is what happens when partisanship is strong and one party is, not to mince words, fucking evil. You get this. People making flimsy excuses for breaking the law, because the alternative is admitting, "my side is wrong in a very meaningful way and we may face consequences for doing so". And that's viscerally painful for many people (myself included). So they can't admit that. They can't admit, "Wow, yeah, there's a law against that and asking that that law be enforced is not unreasonable, it is how government is supposed to work." So instead they parrot the bullshit excuses offered by the people who definitely know better but are paid to look the other way, and pretend everything is fine as yet more norms and laws are broken and we shovel another group of minorities into concentration camps as the administration says, "Oh, that's cute, you expect the law to matter".

This is how we get fascism, by the way.
  #49  
Old 06-16-2019, 12:08 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Maybe Republicans should do the right thing instead of looking for excuses to do the wrong thing.
+1
  #50  
Old 06-16-2019, 01:53 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,096
As to those arguing that Kellyanne's situation demonstrates that the Hatch act is a bad idea and should be eliminated, be careful what you wish for. Those under the thumb of this act skew much more to the left than to the right.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017