11–20 of 20 posts
Why does a US President have so much power in seemingly appointing incompetent political hacks or party donors to all sorts of important roles ???. In most cases a country has a professional civil service where political hackery are kept to a minimum and policy making is decided by the ministers and it all filters down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if even that's a real change. Since a new party president with their congress can change the law again. The only way to do this correctly is with bi-partisan support which seems to be lacking on more and more issues these days.
I don't think it's a bad thing that the will of the voters can lead to changes in law.
Why does a US President have so much power in seemingly appointing incompetent political hacks or party donors to all sorts of important roles ???. In most cases a country has a professional civil service where political hackery are kept to a minimum and policy making is decided by the ministers and it all filters down.
There is a term for people like Ajit Pai taking leading roles and it is corporate capture. This has been happening to other government agencies and it is a real risk to a democracy. These people have a single goal and that is to serve corporate interests. We have seen this happen in several agencies under the current administration.
There is a term for people like Ajit Pai taking leading roles and it is corporate capture. This has been happening to other government agencies and it is a real risk to a democracy. These people have a single goal and that is to serve corporate interests. We have seen this happen in several agencies under the current administration.
What's the term?
There is a term for people like Ajit Pai taking leading roles and it is corporate capture. This has been happening to other government agencies and it is a real risk to a democracy. These people have a single goal and that is to serve corporate interests. We have seen this happen in several agencies under the current administration.
Why does a US President have so much power in seemingly appointing incompetent political hacks or party donors to all sorts of important roles ???. In most cases a country has a professional civil service where political hackery are kept to a minimum and policy making is decided by the ministers and it all filters down.
There is a term for people like Ajit Pai taking leading roles and it is corporate capture. This has been happening to other government agencies and it is a real risk to a democracy. These people have a single goal and that is to serve corporate interests. We have seen this happen in several agencies under the current administration.