231–240 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump is known to be that type where if you want him to go with your suggestion, you must be the last person in the room.
Perhaps that's why Elon was following him so closely everywhere at the tail end of his campaign and at the start of his presidency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment doesn't make sense if you're aware of the content of the guides under discussion. Subversion is the goal of them. To be successful requires time and not getting found out. It requires plausible deniability.
Cool, how does the NSF director subvert with plausible deniability?
https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think we are in a situation where none of the above is happening What leads you to believe the guy hasn't fought? He literally said "I have done all I can." Do you want him to create so much conflict that he is forced to leave in disgrace, burning every bridge he comes across? Or is it OK that a good guy fights behind the scenes, and resigns with grace when he has lost that fight?
Does getting fired by Trump for publicly resisting his changes qualify as disgrace?
One thing I don't understand is people resigning on principles. If something bad is happening to an organization that I hold a significant amount of clout and power in, I'm not just going to leave and hand the reigns to someone on 'their side' -- I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I can. So many people are just leaving...instead of fighting. Which seems like it's going to have the effect of j…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's certainly going to test your moral fortitude but at some point I think this is a bit like telling a victim of domestic violence to stick it out.
the victim of domestic violence sticking it out doesn't help anyone else. Except maybe the children -- which I could see there are some situations where not sticking it out could be worse for everyone. People look at domestic violence victims and always say "well why didn't they just leave?" as if leaving is the perfect solution -- but it rarely is. There are other factors. Income. Children. If there were a perfect s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool, how does the NSF director subvert with plausible deniability?
Maybe the NSF director should confer with their GS peers in other services: https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep existing. Right, but with whose money?
I'm pointing out a definitional misunderstanding. It's was a double negative misinterpreted as a single negative.
They are saying, the action taken by the administration is to cut funding to the department. This can't really be "obstructed" short of the director using their personal funds to pay people's salaries. It would require either people to work for free, or an outside source of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep hearing this. But for that to work, the elites have to have a bunch of money available, that didn't lose value when everything fell apart. Well, where are they parking that money right now, that won't lose value when everything else does?
Switzerland, Malta, the Cayman Islands, all the traditional tax havens I'd assume.
I suppose that you could keep gold or bitcoin wallets in a vault, but then it actually belongs to the vault guards, not to you.
Basically you need a collapse that's bad enough to shrink asset prices but not bad enough to break the social contact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the NSF director should confer with their GS peers in other services: https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage...
That exact book states that sabotage should only be done with plausible deniability, so I ask again...
I'm not sure what you're asking at this point.
It's a book about sabotage over a long period of time, written in particular to partisans of various countries.
Plausible deniability is the CIA operating method.
"How to do shit to subvert large orgs covertly via death by a thousand cuts" is another title for the manuscript, in some universe, somewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it disagree and commit? NSF is an "independent agency" [1] so if the job you were appointed to an confirmed by congress (senate) is at odds with the presidents desires I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a problem for the president not you. Similar to all those inspector generals who just gave up when they were illegally fired. Literally your job is to prevent the president from corruption, how are you going to do…
Seems unconstitutional for congress to be able to create a regulatory agency fully outside of the executive's control, as who will check the congress's power? Appointment and confirmation exists so both branches must assent to all officers of then government
They decide what is and is not constitutional, not you. And, contrary to what Internet armchair "textualists" will proclaim, most of the constitution is up for interpretation and actually quite vague.
We've been debating the constitution since the moment we lifted the pen. Or, er, quill. Have some humility.