Loyalty oath to President?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Ronstar, May 13, 2017.

  1. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump demanded former FBI Director James Comey swear loyalty to him.

    Comey said no.

    All political appointees in the Federal govt. serve at the pleasure of the President.

    Should all Federal employees be required to swear allegiance to the President?
     
    Bowerbird and VietVet like this.
  2. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's a hell of a big difference between asking someone to be loyal to you, to support you, and to help you do your job, and asking them to SWEAR some OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. But, it's no surprise that radical Democrats would try to twist this completely out of context, just like they do everything else....
     
  3. TheGreatSatan

    TheGreatSatan Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    21,269
    Likes Received:
    21,243
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing says loyalty like large shipments of cash to our enemies.
     
  4. VietVet

    VietVet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2017
    Messages:
    4,198
    Likes Received:
    4,859
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hitler had the army swear an oath to him.
    I'm sure Trump would be in favor.
    It is the only requirement to be in his cabinet, altho there are bonus points for incompetence and corruption, but if you aren't a sworn boot-licker, you have no place.
     
    monkrules, Margot2 and Bowerbird like this.
  5. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You must be reading fake news.
     
  6. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump hasn't denied it
     
    monkrules and Margot2 like this.
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes he has.
     
    jackson33 likes this.
  8. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    negative ghostrider
     
  9. HailVictory

    HailVictory Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, I would say yes and no. The military, for example, serves the Constitution. However, the government must serve the head of state, which is the President. However, the President must be impeachable, meaning that "mutiny" has to be allowed even if the appointee swears allegiance to the President. It is a very sticky issue, actually.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. monkrules

    monkrules Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    trump personality make-up seems to closely parallel that of the leader of North Korea.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
    Sallyally likes this.
  11. HailVictory

    HailVictory Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sure, that may be true. I have no love of Trump, but to cut him some slack, he's no Kim Jong Un. If you get right down to it, he's just a stereotypical old rich guy. Which makes it almost a little better, until you realize he's the leader of the free world.
     
  12. micfranklin

    micfranklin Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    17,729
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Shouldn't loyalty be sworn only to the country and not necessarily an individual?
     
    monkrules and ArmySoldier like this.
  13. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Adolf used this too.
     
  14. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Twist this out of context? Watch the following video and then tell me if this is being twisted out of context.



    President Trump violates established protocol by not consulting with the (acting) Attorney General before and doesn't contact the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) before issuing his (Muslim) Travel Ban.

    The (acting) Attorney General, Sally Yates, upon becoming aware of Trump's travel ban identifies the fact that federal law prohibits the use of "religion and national origin" as grounds for prohibiting access to the United States. She's also aware of the fact that the law being cited by the Trump administration requires a "finding" (statement of established fact) that a threat exists but, according to the DHS the nationality of a person does not establish a "threat" to the United States. Prohibiting or restricting access to the United States based upon religion and/or national origin is a violation of the 14th Amendments "equal protection clause" and the "freedom of religion clause" to the US Constitution.

    (Acting) Attorney General Sally Yates orders the Justice Department to not defend Trump's executive order because it's unlawful and violates the US Constitution.

    Precedent exists for not defending even US laws that are shown to be clearly unconstitutional. AG Eric Holder refused to continue to defend DOMA Section 3 when it was proven to the Attorney General that Section 3's limitation to marriage to only a man and a woman was clearly unconstitutional (Hollingsworth). Holder even convinced President Obama that his support for DOMA Section 3 was support for an unconstitutional law.

    To date, in defense of both "Muslim" travel ban 1.0 and 2.0 the Department of Justice has yet to present any evidence in any federal court or federal appeals court that individuals, based upon national origin from the countries listed, represent a creditable threat to the United States. Not one single piece of evidence because, as the DHS pointed out, there is no evidence that national origin represents a threat to the United States. What has been presented in court is that the individuals from these countries are almost exclusively Muslim, that Donald Trump's declared intention was to ban Muslims, and that Trump asked former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani to put together a team to "legally ban Muslims" and that team comes up with the solution of banning a "threat" but Trump forget to find an threat before issuing his Muslim travel bans.

    President Trump fires (acting) Attorney Sally Yates because she defended the law and the US Constitution. Within hours Dana Boente, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was sworn in because he was willing to be "loyal to Donald Trump" and ordered the Department of Justice to defend an executive order that was clearly a Muslim travel ban in violation of US law and the US Constitution.

    Next we have former FBI Director Comey. Comey refused to back Trump's claim that the Obama administration spied on his campaign in 2016 and that infuriated Donald Trump. Trump was also infuriated by the ongoing investigation of the Russian involvement on his behalf during the Presidential elections and Trump campaign officials connected with the Russians that Comey was heading. After firing Comey, contracting several fabricated stories coming from the White House, President Trump openly admitted on NBC that Comey was fired because of the investigation into Russia's intervention in the US Presidential election to benefit Donald Trump and the documented connections between Trump campaign officials and the Russians at least some of which are believed to have been criminal.

    Those are the facts and they're not twisted or out of context. They're not "Republican" facts or "Democratic" facts but instead are facts based upon the evidence.

    President Donald Trump wants "loyalty to Donald Trump" regardless of whether that loyalty requires violating the law, the US Constitution, or the Oath of Office federal officials are required to take pledging loyalty to the US Constitution.

    An interesting commentary on President Trump that's being compared to Nixon that resigned in the face of allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of justice:

    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-president-nixon-presidential-library-grasps-redemption-606924

     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
  15. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The long and the short of it is that, as Commander-in-Chief, Trump was definitely acting within his constitutional authority with the travel ban. "Established protocol"...? All of it melts away before the bedrock foundation of the Constitution, Shiva.

    Spying on Trump's campaign? It becomes clearer every day that this is exactly what the Obama regime did, especially in its last few weeks. And the whole thing about how "the Russians hacked the election for Trump"? So far, to this moment, even though the "investigation" has been dragging on every since it was clear that Hilarity lost the election, no PROOF or EVIDENCE has been offered to the American people that any of this nonsense ever really happened!

    Think -- are there several very, very good reasons WHY the "Russians" would have wanted to see Hillary Clinton elected? You BET there are! But what good reasons would there be for the "Russians" to want to see an unpredictable, hard-bargainer like Trump to be elected?

    Who practically gave away over 20% of the uranium deposits of the United States to Russia in a shady deal, in return for $145 million dollars in "donations" to the Clinton Foundation? Who was so incredibly careless, arrogant, ignorant, and STOOPID that she was the worst kind of loose cannon imaginable with national security and classified information? Putin and the FSB would have had a ball with someone like Hillary Clinton. They'd have been "in and out of her pants" before she even felt the breeze....

    Trump? A strange, unknowable personality. Very changeable and unpredictable. A billionaire who knows how to bargain and is himself a master of "quid pro quo". Putin knows international politics better than he does, but Trump's a fast learner.

    Question: if you were Putin, who would you rather deal with? A criminal, self-aggrandizing "putz" like Hilarity Clinton, or a savvy, unpredictable man who could be full of nasty surprises? Me? I'd go for the "low-hanging fruit" every time....

    upload_2017-5-15_14-50-6.png . "Hey, it's better to put that old toxic uranium to good use... right?"
     
  16. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The OP message is false as are follow up messages by the OPer. In never happened. Trump said it never happened.
     
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it would not surprise me if Trump tried that, but no, his oath should be to the country, not to the person

    "Here Is The Confidentiality Agreement Signed By A Former Trump Campaign Adviser"

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidn...a-former-tru?utm_term=.cm6b5RpMZ4#.thVMqRYaK1

    "Nunberg also agreed never to publicly “demean or disparage … the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or Any Family Member Company,” as well as not “to assist or counsel” any other candidates other than Trump during this election cycle."
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2017
    monkrules likes this.
  18. therooster

    therooster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    13,004
    Likes Received:
    5,494
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't you have a link to that conversation?
     
  19. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think there should be some latitude when dealing with Obama flunkies that haven't been properly removed. The most obvious answer would be to find and eliminate all the Obama flunkies that are left, barring that, knowing the liberal penchant to disclose and release information illegally, perhaps some sort of oath is necessary...
     
  20. monkrules

    monkrules Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An oath to Fuehrer trump, you mean....
     
  21. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely NOT! Federal employees should continue swearing allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and the nation, not the President, who is only one part of the government. If employees swore allegiance to the President, then he'd become immune to persecution for crimes committed while in office. We'd become a nation of men instead of a nation of laws. That would be opposed to everything our Founding Fathers tried to accomplish with their lives' work.
     
    monkrules likes this.

Share This Page