Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 20/08/2025, 12:46:31 UTC
Quote
You should not speak on the matters of US if your knowledge is very limited. The case just means that Trump can't dismiss Powell for not liking the way his nose looks or because the weather is very rainy today. In practice it means very little. It leaves a very open field on what for cause means, and they can easily argue this in many ways as it includes any number of things from incapacity, misconduct, neglect and so on it goes. The only practical difference is that Trump must make an argument for a cause, rather than just dismiss him at will without any recourse.
When at cause things are left open to interpretation they are mostly a formality and not a limit of power. It is not a clear case of anything and clearly you don't understand anything about the US.
When at cause things are left open to interpretation they are mostly a formality and not a limit of power. It is not a clear case of anything and clearly you don't understand anything about the US.
And if you read my first comment, you will also notice where I talked about such being part of the limited options the president has over the power to remove the chairman, which includes if he's not effective in his duty and if he's doing things based on his personal interest and not for economic benefit, then the president can present a case against him; if it's valid, then that can be used to remove a seating chairperson from office, and not just like he can seat and declare/replace him without any backing.
Original archived Re: Trump and the pressing rate cut
Scraped on 20/08/2025, 12:41:54 UTC
Quote
You should not speak on the matters of US if your knowledge is very limited. The case just means that Trump can't dismiss Powell for not liking the way his nose looks or because the weather is very rainy today. In practice it means very little. It leaves a very open field on what for cause means, and they can easily argue this in many ways as it includes any number of things from incapacity, misconduct, neglect and so on it goes. The only practical difference is that Trump must make an argument for a cause, rather than just dismiss him at will without any recourse.
When at cause things are left open to interpretation they are mostly a formality and not a limit of power. It is not a clear case of anything and clearly you don't understand anything about the US.
When at cause things are left open to interpretation they are mostly a formality and not a limit of power. It is not a clear case of anything and clearly you don't understand anything about the US.
And if you read my first comment, you will also notice where I talked about such being part of the limited options the president has over the power to remove the chairman, which includes if he's not effective in his duty and if he's doing things based on his personal interest and not for economic benefit, then the president can present a case against him; if it's valid, then that can be used to remove a seating chairperson from office, and not just like he can seat and declare/replace him without any backing.