Live data from Hacker News

DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

dropsitenews.com

211–220 of 317 posts

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a candidate that didn't win a primary _narrowly_ losing to a candidate that won a primary a big deal? Like if Democrats decided to run Ron DeSantis how huge do you think Trump's lead would've been?

If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to another marathon runner, that's OK. If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to a toddler, that's probably not. The Dems fought an eminently beatable candidate and lost, and they continue to struggle with messaging now (stop putting Schumer up there to deliver it!). They flubbed the response to Dobbs, the consultant class nixed the Harris campaign parts that were working…

> If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to a toddler, that's probably not.

You understand that in this analogy, the toddler won the NYC marathon 2 years ago and then beat somebody that lost their local 5k?

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to another marathon runner, that's OK. If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to a toddler, that's probably not. The Dems fought an eminently beatable candidate and lost, and they continue to struggle with messaging now (stop putting Schumer up there to deliver it!). They flubbed the response to Dobbs, the consultant class nixed the Harris campaign parts that were working…

> If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to a toddler, that's probably not. You understand that in this analogy, the toddler won the NYC marathon 2 years ago and then beat somebody that lost their local 5k?

I do!

The party that keeps losing to the toddler in varied fashion needs to do some soul searching and make changes instead of spending a bunch of political capital keeping AOC out of roles.

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#213

I say this as a UKian with a constitutional monarch as head of state: These actions suggest that today the United States seems to have a de facto King with far greater powers than even those held by George III at the time the founders decided that America did not need a King. They might not be called that, but they have the ability to exert behaviours akin to an English monarch not seen much since Henry VIII. Arguabl…

Elected officials trying to do what they told voters they would do is literally the textbook definition of monarchy.

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The checks and balances assumed the entire country didn't vote the exact same people into majorities in all 3 branches

There have been cases before where both the Executive and Legislative branches have been held by the same party. What's different now is that Trump is trying to consolidate much more power in the Executive branch (an explicit Project2025 goal), and Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals (I mean, he did pardon all those who violently stormed the capitol and threatened…

> Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals

They're afraid of their voters, as they should be, as Trump is more popular with their voters than any of them are. All Trump/Musk need to do is endorse an opponent in their primaries.

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#215
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen rumors that the server isn't on US soil. Any confirmation of that?

It's fronted by Cloudflare, so not sure how someone would assess that, or why it wouldn't be on US soil (or why that would matter).

Because generally speaking, it's not a good idea to have machines with possible links to sensitive government data not under the jurisdiction of the government that owns that data.

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#216

I say this as a UKian with a constitutional monarch as head of state: These actions suggest that today the United States seems to have a de facto King with far greater powers than even those held by George III at the time the founders decided that America did not need a King. They might not be called that, but they have the ability to exert behaviours akin to an English monarch not seen much since Henry VIII. Arguabl…

Elected officials trying to do what they told voters they would do is literally the textbook definition of monarchy.

> Elected officials trying to do what they told voters they would do is literally the textbook definition of monarchy.

I expect that you intended to say "textbook definition of democracy", but the Freudian slip is quite something.

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elected officials trying to do what they told voters they would do is literally the textbook definition of monarchy.

> Elected officials trying to do what they told voters they would do is literally the textbook definition of monarchy. I expect that you intended to say "textbook definition of democracy", but the Freudian slip is quite something.

No no, its monarchism. Doing what his supporters voted for makes Trump a king.

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#218
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The checks and balances assumed the entire country didn't vote the exact same people into majorities in all 3 branches

Trump won the popular vote with 49.8% of votes cast, let’s stop pretending the entire country gave him the mandate to do whatever he wants.

Presidents aren't elected through popular votes. He won 312 to 226.

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#219
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump won the popular vote with 49.8% of votes cast, let’s stop pretending the entire country gave him the mandate to do whatever he wants.

Presidents aren't elected through popular votes. He won 312 to 226.

A difference of a few thousand people in a few specific states.

Re: DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds

#220
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds thoroughly unremarkable by itself. A staffer asked for an explanation of something he was seeing and got one (he was incorrect about the data). This interaction repeats a zillion times per day for any consultancy project.

Is there any documented process in place to ensure that the staffer has to take the explanation into account? Government workers have been relentlessly antagonized by Trump and his party. How can we be sure these situations are handled correctly and fairly, especially when the people doing the "auditing" don't know what they are doing due to missing qualifications?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN