• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

Status
Not open for further replies.
A few closer to home examples. And not necessarily ones knowledgeable in their jobs.
Freeland was appointed to finance.
Jolie to Foreign Affairs
Blair to DND
Holland to Health
Just to name a few ministers that were appointed by a PM voted into position without having been in politics, except a tiny stint as Opposition Leader.
None of the above named had any background in their appointed portfolios.

What counts is your ability to adapt, learn and surround yourself with SME's.

I'll bet Hegseth won't up and dissappear and book himself into the hospital without telling anyone, including his boss.

Michael Fortier enters the chat...


Interesting, I genuinely thought it was a rule rather than an almost universally followed norm
Does the PM even have to be elected?

Our Cabinet choices are constrained unlike the US so I dont see the comparison other than as an academic exercise. We chose to elect the drama teacher
 
Are we really talking about SMEs or people knowingly in opposition to the Trump administration that would try stymie everything and create a silent coup like the last time?

I haven't heard of any plan to fire SMEs loyal to the Constitution and their duty to the Commander in Chief.
So what takes precedence? Being an SME, being loyal to the Constitution, or doing their duty for the C-in-C? One can be loyal to the Constitution and not the C-in-C, such as in the case of unlawful orders.

Because as I have mentioned before, US military officers swear the oath to the Constitution, not to the C-in-C. I would assume that the federal public servants do something similar.

@KevinB may be able to clarify.
 
Perhaps an agreement on the definition of fascism is in order.

"Sure. We'll have Fascism here. But, it will come as an anti-Fascist movement."

"When Fascism comes to America it will be on a program of Americanism."


U. S. Senator Huey Long ( LA )

( Incidentally, Long and RFK are the only two U.S. senators to be assasinated. )
 
So what takes precedence? Being an SME, being loyal to the Constitution, or doing their duty for the C-in-C? One can be loyal to the Constitution and not the C-in-C, such as in the case of unlawful orders.

Because as I have mentioned before, US military officers swear the oath to the Constitution, not to the C-in-C. I would assume that the federal public servants do something similar.

@KevinB may be able to clarify.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


Constitution first, President (as CinC) second, then superior officers.
 
The LEO OOS is similar.

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office I am about to enter. So help me God.

*same for elected officials (except President) and public service employees.

Presidential Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
 
Are we really talking about SMEs or people knowingly in opposition to the Trump administration that would try stymie everything and create a silent coup like the last time?

I haven't heard of any plan to fire SMEs loyal to the Constitution and their duty to the Commander in Chief.
To reattack:


I would suggest that the CJCS is an SME of sorts, loyal to the Constitution first. Or, if the “fire anyone in Milley’s orbit” is to be trusted, that is a whole whack of SMEs loyal to the constitution.
 
To reattack:


I would suggest that the CJCS is an SME of sorts, loyal to the Constitution first. Or, if the “fire anyone in Milley’s orbit” is to be trusted, that is a whole whack of SMEs loyal to the constitution.

The Cat has been chucked amongst the Pigeons... ;)

Hegseth, advocate for firing 'woke' military leaders, picked for defense secretary​


  • Hegseth has expressed disdain for 'woke' policies in Pentagon
  • Hegseth could clash with Joint Chiefs Chairman Brown
  • Hegseth has opposed roles for women in combat roles

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has picked as his secretary of defense Pete Hegseth, a Fox News commentator and veteran who has expressed disdain for so-called "woke" policies of Pentagon leaders, opposed women in combat roles, and questioned whether the top American general was in his position because of his skin color.

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Hegseth could make good on Trump's campaign promises to rid the U.S. military of generals who he accuses of pursuing progressive policies on diversity in the ranks that conservatives have rallied against.

 
The Cat has been chucked amongst the Pigeons... ;)

Hegseth, advocate for firing 'woke' military leaders, picked for defense secretary​


  • Hegseth has expressed disdain for 'woke' policies in Pentagon
  • Hegseth could clash with Joint Chiefs Chairman Brown
  • Hegseth has opposed roles for women in combat roles

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has picked as his secretary of defense Pete Hegseth, a Fox News commentator and veteran who has expressed disdain for so-called "woke" policies of Pentagon leaders, opposed women in combat roles, and questioned whether the top American general was in his position because of his skin color.

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Hegseth could make good on Trump's campaign promises to rid the U.S. military of generals who he accuses of pursuing progressive policies on diversity in the ranks that conservatives have rallied against.

Remember - Trump called Milley “woke”.
 
Remember - Trump called Milley “woke”.

He'd call anyone except this guy woke, I'm guessing ;)

chewing gum phone GIF
 
Remember - Trump called Milley “woke”.
There are many things I disliked about the former CJCS Gen Milley, but to call him woke was a little ridiculous.

The CJCS is the President’s Military Advisor, they have no real command role in DoD.
 
The LEO OOS is similar.

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office I am about to enter. So help me God.

*same for elected officials (except President) and public service employees.

Presidential Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And in both cases there is the presumption of free will. Opinions matter and adjudication is required. The judge might not agree with the opinion.
 
Does the PM even have to be elected?

Our Cabinet choices are constrained unlike the US so I dont see the comparison other than as an academic exercise. We chose to elect the drama teacher

The constitutional requirement to be the PM is that your government can retain the confidence of the house. There is no explicit requirement for the PM to be an MP.

Mackenzie King lost his seat in the 1945 general election, but remained PM. Eventually one of his backbenchers was encouraged to resign and Mackenzie King won the resulting byelection, getting him back into the house.

Cabinet ministers are also not required to sit in the Commons, but there is a convention that they should. Our late WW2 Minister of Defence (McNaughton) never sat as an MP - he lost two consecutive elections.
 
The constitutional requirement to be the PM is that your government can retain the confidence of the house. There is no explicit requirement for the PM to be an MP.

Mackenzie King lost his seat in the 1945 general election, but remained PM. Eventually one of his backbenchers was encouraged to resign and Mackenzie King won the resulting byelection, getting him back into the house.

Cabinet ministers are also not required to sit in the Commons, but there is a convention that they should. Our late WW2 Minister of Defence (McNaughton) never sat as an MP - he lost two consecutive elections.
And yet, it was King who launched a non confidence motion in 1926 three days after the Conservatives formed government, when Meighen chose not to go through with a ministerial byelection (a convention at the time where cabinet would resign their seats and run for reelection in their riding), which he only did because doing so would leave them vulnerable to a non confidence motion.
 
The US has public employees that run the agencies. The cabinet secretaries are political deputies of the president. They are not there to run the agencies; they are there to see that the president's policies are given form and function by the employees. Sensibly, obedience to the law (constitution) is a first requirement of political appointees, but the requirement to be faithful to the president's directives follows closely.

In any government, partisan civil employees can do a lot of damage if they can obstruct the political leadership with impunity. Their latitude for disobedience ought to be analogous to disobeying manifestly unlawful (unconstitutional) directives. The political leadership ought to be able to fire, or at least transfer, obstructionist employees quickly.

Does anyone really believe that if we were a country of 400 million we would collapse into disarray if we continued to routinely select ministers from among elected MPs instead of reaching outside the government for "experts"?
 
And yet, it was King who launched a non confidence motion in 1926 three days after the Conservatives formed government, when Meighen chose not to go through with a ministerial byelection (a convention at the time where cabinet would resign their seats and run for reelection in their riding), which he only did because doing so would leave them vulnerable to a non confidence motion.

I can only imagine the confusion of people in 1926 who didn't follow the newspapers too closely.

"We are having an election."

"Mackenzie King asked for an election?"

"Yes, but the GG refused to call one."

"I'm confused...you said there is going to be an election?"

"Yes, PM Meighen lost a confidence vote."

"What? When did he become PM?"

"Couple of days ago."
 

Perhaps an agreement on the definition of fascism is in order.

While readers debate the definition, hopefully maga is anti-fascist.

Because the alternative seems a little grim,

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top