Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 413 posts

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#211

Post by hatthew »

dmitrygr wrote: post #138
code_runner wrote: post #41

DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation, and I really do hope it will be get reined in before they can cause an issue so big that _even trump's croniest cronies_ have to admit what is going on. For someone who claims to love freedom of speech, Elon is pretty quick to determine who can say what, and how much access to _his_ data people have.

No personal option stated or implied, but: exactly this was clearly promised before the election, and it is being delivered right now. The people voted for this: a majority of the American people. Democracy, no?

People have to vote for one party or the other. Voting for a party doesn't mean they want every single thing promised by that candidate, it just means they think the sum of all things from that candidate is better than the sum of all things from the other candidate. If this whole DOGE thing was hypothetically not directly connected with any party, I would guess that most americans would have voted against it.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#212

Post by llamaimperative »

skissane wrote: post #200
quickthrowman wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not debateable at all, the President has to ask Congress to rescind appropriated funds if the President doesn’t want to spend the money allocated by Congress. If Congress chooses not to rescind the allocated funds, then the president must spend the money. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 is explicitly clear about this, there is absolutely no room for debate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…

> The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 is explicitly clear about this, there is absolutely no room for debate. Yes, but is that Act constitutional? Has SCOTUS upheld its constitutionality? That’s where there absolutely is room for debate.

Has the government's right to mow down civilians with helicopter-mounted machine guns been tested in the Supreme Court lately?

That's where there absolutely is room for debate.

This argument can apply to literally anything.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#213

Post by hatthew »

outside1234 wrote: post #89
dylan604 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what ways is a president restricted from acting like a king when the other two bodies of government meant to act as a check and balance have capitulated any of those checks and essentially give carte blanche to the president?

It is a good question. Hopefully we get an answer before we are all bankrupt. No idea why the markets aren't in freefall at this point.

I guess the markets think we'll get an answer before a full collapse

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#214

Post by llamaimperative »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #75
jklinger410 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation This narrative infuriates me. Either you are right, and entire wings of our government are abetting a coup, or you are wrong, and our government has huge back doors that no one is watching. Both realities reveal something urgently broken with the United States. In a way that should scare the entire western world to its core.

> Both realities reveal something urgently broken with the United States. Our government operations expect people to conduct themselves as adults. Clearly, if we survive Elon's coup, we need to encode these norms into law.

IMO it might be a good time for a constitutional convention after this. Our system has always had gaping holes in it and I think the outcome of all this could be catastrophic for so many normal Americans across the political spectrum that they'd be willing to actually close many of them in good faith.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#215

Post by Volundr »

remarkEon wrote: post #198
floatrock wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we complaining about the millions the feds pay SpaceX for their starlink terminals? Are we concerned about the government subscriptions to Bloomberg feeds? I'll get rage-y about this one when someone explains what a Politico premium subscription provides and why it was a corrupt purchase. Maybe it's a valid information data service that provides key information to whatever agency purchased it, purchased using an…

You see the difference between a Starlink and Bloomberg terminal, and a "Pro" subscription to Politico, right?

Starlink yes, Bloomberg no. Can you explain it to me?

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#216

Post by llamaimperative »

kemayo wrote: post #183
olalonde wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not familiar with "filibuster". Does it mean that Democrats could effectively prevent a potential "DOGE is legal" bill from passing by endlessly debating it?

Originally, yes. These days a "talking filibuster" like that is almost never used, apart from occasionally when someone wants to be dramatic about it. There's a thing called a vote for cloture, meaning a vote you take about whether to stop debate and vote on the issue. In the US Senate, a cloture vote requires 60 votes (out of 100) to pass. So there's a "procedural filibuster", whereby one side will announce that the…

Around 2008 you say? Like when we elected a black man to the Presidency? What a coincidence.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#217

Post by buzer »

llamaimperative wrote: post #209
buzer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds weird. I can understand that you cannot take money that was promised for thing X and spend in thing Y but if you can reduce the X spending I don't think there is any issue. Now I do not know if Congress has explicitly required X to provide certain thing. If they did then there might be some issue if X fails to provide it. It's probably easy to say someone is accountable for it if it's something objective…

No, the executive is not allowed either to redirect or to stop or slow the Congressionally apportioned funds. This is called impoundment and it's unequivocally illegal.

No wonder everyone always tries to figure out how to spend money if they still have some left before end of the fiscal year. Some individual "I saved us $1 million by shutting down servers we don't use!" Manager "Fuck, now need to quickly figure out some way to spend $1 million..."

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#218

Post by JumpCrisscross »

whatever1 wrote: post #172
dangus wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there is “unseeing.” They can be tried for rather obvious crimes and thrown in prison.

They will get a blanket pardon anyway. So in the end we will have to apologize to them.

> will get a blanket pardon

Going into CMMS and IRS records almost certainly puts them in jeopardy of state crimes. Tight collections of only young, fervent ideologues have one role in military and political systems: cannon fodder.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#219

Post by Gothmog69 »

krapp wrote: post #181
littlestymaar wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole operation is as related to finding corruption exhibits as the Moscow trials were to finding traitors in the Red Army. It is a (ridiculous) pretext for purging the system from people that the new power deems “uncooperative”.

Yeah, I mean Musk has literally tweeted that DOGE is "dismantling the radical-left shadow government."[0] This is not about efficiency or rooting out corruption, it's about persecuting political enemies and purging wrongthink. Which was something people here screamed bloody murder about when they accused Biden of doing it, just by asking Twitter to moderate content, but I guess this is all fine now. [0] https://x.com…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN