Opinion First Thing: Trump says he is firing Fed governor Lisa Cook in escalating attack on bank’s independence

[Limbo Pete]

The thing you have to remember is that @HereticBD is a Canadian larping as an American conservative and not a serious person.

You're talking about a guy who's mom still makes his bed

 

[Fox by the Sea]

sometimes i read only the last couple of pages of the thread to see how the discussion went and if it relates much to the title, or it just wildly went off rails.

 

[ShadowRun]

sometimes i read only the last couple of pages of the thread to see how the discussion went and if it relates much to the title, or it just wildly went off rails.

The last few pages trash posts mostly, you’re not missing much

 

[Scerpi]

Of course you did, you always reply to things you can't answer with childish retorts. You're an empty track suit, like Confucamus.

Lol… clown

 

[Loiosh]

Lol… clown

You have nothing to offer.

You're just an impotent racist edge lord regurgitating your toxic social media feed.

I'm pretty sure the partisan garbage you ingest is giving you cancer.

And hey, if that senator is guilty of rape, lock him the fuck up.

 

[Loiosh]

The thing you have to remember is that @HereticBD is a Canadian larping as an American conservative and not a serious person.

He isn't Canadian, he's from Toronto.

I can say that because I'm from Montreal.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Which does not make him her employer, or boss. That's not how shared power works in our government. The legislative branch isn't the "employer" of the President because they have the power to impeach.

But he's allowed to remove her for cause in the same way your boss can fire you.

 

[Limbo Pete]

But he's allowed to remove her for cause in the same way your boss can fire you.

It's not the same. The ability to remove for-cause does not make him her boss

 

[PainIsLIfe]

She doesn't work for the president, he can't tell fed governors what to do. He does have the power to fire someone for cause, that's what we've been talking about. The definition of cause, and whether an accusation in a letter from one of his minions qualifies. Trump has openly threatened the feds if they don't lower interest rates, and he wants to be able to fire people if they don't do what he wants.

So you just dont like the reason that he fired her for?

Trump is an ass and a bully, but that doesn't mean she can ignore the laws and keep her 250k job.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It's not the same. The ability to remove for-cause does not make him her boss

He has authority to fire her, give me a better analogy

 

[PainIsLIfe]

If it were a simple mix up which the court is inclined to understand,

No crime.. but will step down as of no choice.

Does it acknowledge guilt…no

Funny that only one side of the political isle makes legitimate mistakes/mixups.

 

[syct23]

Funny that only one side of the political isle makes legitimate mistakes/mixups.

It happens with both sides every four to eight years, where have you been?

Or is American politics even your default?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It's just an excuse for Trump to make his power grab

This I agree with, but it doesn't change the facts and it doesn't allow her to break the law. Much like thecloan fraud case against Trump was just an excuse to punish him didnt make him less culpable.


Also, I dont believe a question like "will this be your primary residence or a second home" needs a lot hand holding to answer.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I really appreciate the moral consistency on display when it comes to discussing convicted and accused fraudsters in the political arena.

In a perfect world Trump wouldn't be in office to make this call, but this is par for the course and most are tired of it.

Remember when Tim Geithner apologized for not paying his taxes and was then appointed to head the IRS? Lol

 

[PainIsLIfe]

That's a laughably bad faith argument. Trump isn't trying to seize control of institutions because Democrats, it's for his own purposes.

Did you forget when GWB fired a bunch of US attorneys for partisan reasons?

Dis you forget when Bill Clinton did the same thing?

 

[avenue94]

Dis you forget when Bill Clinton did the same thing?

I did not. Those firings are legal and not very rare. Quite difference from this case.

There's also nuance in firing attorneys because they don't align with your party and firing them because they won't do immoral or illegal things. But that's kind of moot given what I mentioned already.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It happens with both sides every four to eight years, where have you been?

Or is American politics even your default?

That went over your head.

Every time something is found out it is "breaking the law" if they were a righty and "an honest mistake" if it was a lefty.

I think Trump is "sophisticated" enough to know he was breaking the law for better loan rates. The same way thatcI believe this lady was as well.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I did not. Those firings are legal and not very rare. Quite difference from this case.

There's also nuance in firing attorneys because they don't align with your party and firing them because they won't do immoral or illegal things. But that's kind of moot given what I mentioned already.

You purposely mentioned Bush firing attorneys as if it was nefarious and underhanded. Just curious why you didnt mention Clinton doing it first.

 

[avenue94]

You purposely mentioned Bush firing attorneys as if it was nefarious and underhanded. Just curious why you didnt mention Clinton doing it first.

If I recall, the context was a bad faith argument that cancel culture is giving cover to Trump's actions, which is ludicrous. Hence I mentioned that there is a much longer history of partisan firings of civil servants, even if this case is the first of its kind.

 

[Limbo Pete]

He has authority to fire her, give me a better analogy

I'm not sure what you want, it's part of a system of shared power and oversight. Again, like I said previously, he's her "boss" in the same way the legislative branch is his boss. That is, not at all, even though the one is accountable to the other. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work. The authority of the executive to remove with cause serves as a check on what is intended to be a part of our system that operates largely outside the direct instruction or influence of the executive.