It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The office of the President

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Very well said. However, I'm sure such a sober message will not fit into any of the guiding narratives currently presented.




posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

thanks. Yea, the hate seems to over ride any common sense that may have existed.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Bhadhidar

except that's just not an option. There is no Constitutional amendment to handle usurping the office of president based on things you don't like about him. If he did things that are against the law, (high crimes or misdemeanors) then he can and should be impeached and removed from office. But all that MUST be done properly, or it's a crime in itself.

I'm having a hard time understanding how people think there is some grey area here where this may be OK. It's not and will never be OK. (if it's real)



There’s also no Constitutional Amendment to handle a President who is unqualified, or even under-qualified, for the office.

A President may be impeached if the appropriate criminal activity can be shown, or effectively removed from office if determined to be physically or psychologically unfit to serve, but there is no provision, currently, for dealing with a president who is simply not willing to execute the duties and responsibilities of the office in the best interests of the country.

But then, who makes that call?

If not the person elected to the office, then who?

But if the person elected has, to the wide opinion of those close to him, refused, or is simply incaple of recognizing those duties and responsibilities, what then?

Just throw up your hands and say “Que sera, sera!”?

And amid the now smoldering ruins of the country you swore to serve, you can testify with a clear heart

“I was only following orders.”



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar




But then, who makes that call?


The American people do.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I maintain that all the people working in the Administration have a responsibility to the Constitution and the Country. If they honestly believe, given their extensive experience in government, that something Trump is doing or plans to do that is not in the best interests of the Country, they have a responsibility to stop it. If Trump was about to Nuke Canada because he doesn't like what was said about him, someone needs to step in. I know, that's extreme, but you get the point. Everyone is assuming that Trump is being submarined by a bunch of disloyal, resistance a-holes. That he is harmless and nothing but the smartest guy in the world and the very best President ever. We don't know a fraction of what really goes on at the WH. Those people do. What if...



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Bhadhidar




But then, who makes that call?


The American people do.


If you were to hire someone (or in this case, elect) to do a certain job, but then that person proceeded to do only part of the job, and refused to do the rest of the job, would you keep him on the job for the rest of the season?

Or fire his a$$ on the spot?

At least in regards to this administration, we have a “co-worker” who, although he/she recognizes we (the people) made a “poor hire”, is willing to pick up Trump’s slack for the good of the company, and so that we don’t have to go through another hiring round.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Bhadhidar




But then, who makes that call?


The American people do.


If you were to hire someone (or in this case, elect) to do a certain job, but then that person proceeded to do only part of the job, and refused to do the rest of the job, would you keep him on the job for the rest of the season?

Or fire his a$$ on the spot?

At least in regards to this administration, we have a “co-worker” who, although he/she recognizes we (the people) made a “poor hire”, is willing to pick up Trump’s slack for the good of the company, and so that we don’t have to go through another hiring round.


Let's speak about the reality instead of what ifs and hypotheticals. A person or more made anonymous accusations agains the sitting president. They did so without showing their face. Is this how we are to determine whether one is fit for office or not?



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Bhadhidar

except that's just not an option. There is no Constitutional amendment to handle usurping the office of president based on things you don't like about him. If he did things that are against the law, (high crimes or misdemeanors) then he can and should be impeached and removed from office. But all that MUST be done properly, or it's a crime in itself.

I'm having a hard time understanding how people think there is some grey area here where this may be OK. It's not and will never be OK. (if it's real)



There’s also no Constitutional Amendment to handle a President who is unqualified, or even under-qualified, for the office.

A President may be impeached if the appropriate criminal activity can be shown, or effectively removed from office if determined to be physically or psychologically unfit to serve, but there is no provision, currently, for dealing with a president who is simply not willing to execute the duties and responsibilities of the office in the best interests of the country.

But then, who makes that call?

If not the person elected to the office, then who?

But if the person elected has, to the wide opinion of those close to him, refused, or is simply incaple of recognizing those duties and responsibilities, what then?

Just throw up your hands and say “Que sera, sera!”?

And amid the now smoldering ruins of the country you swore to serve, you can testify with a clear heart

“I was only following orders.”


I suppose you would be proud to tell those grand kids, yea, I was part of the coup against Trump, sure we went against the very document we swore to uphold with our lives, but he said mean things to the press, so we felt justified. Oh, and please comeback on Sunday at noon, when visiting hours start again.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Bhadhidar




But then, who makes that call?


The American people do.


If you were to hire someone (or in this case, elect) to do a certain job, but then that person proceeded to do only part of the job, and refused to do the rest of the job, would you keep him on the job for the rest of the season?

Or fire his a$$ on the spot?

At least in regards to this administration, we have a “co-worker” who, although he/she recognizes we (the people) made a “poor hire”, is willing to pick up Trump’s slack for the good of the company, and so that we don’t have to go through another hiring round.


Why bother with rules and law, do what thou will shall be the whole of the law. Go get em tiger.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

“We” aren’t making this determination.

It is the apparent determination being made by someone, supposedly in a high government position within the WH, if not the Administration itself, who is making the determination.

We are just being informed of their actions and the justification(s) behind them.

And even this anonymous author isn’t questioning Trump’s “fitness” for the office, just his lack of ability.

One would assume, given that the author claims to be acting on the best interests of the country, that if there was an actual question as to Trump’s ”fitness” for the office, that actions to invoke the 25th amendment would have proceeded.

They have not, as of yet, obviously.
edit on 6-9-2018 by Bhadhidar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

On the contrary.

The author of the letter seems intent upon “saving” not only the country, but the “agenda” for which Trump was elected; and by extension, attempting to save Trump from himself.

Does Trump require “saving”?

Since I am not present in the WH to judge for myself, I cannot say. The author claims to be/have been so positioned, and thus arrived at that conclusion.

Quite frankly, I would prefer to see Trump “hoist on his own petard”, and find it distasteful to learn that there are those around him who are willing to “clean up after his messes” to further his agenda.

But, I am pragmatic enough to recognize that for the greater good, we must sometimes accept that which we personally find distasteful.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

“Do as thou wilt,

And harm none

Shall be the whole of the Law”.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join