481–490 of 1001 posts
There's a bit of background at https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5152723-donald-t... . If there are better third-party reports, let me know and I'll add to this list. The above is just the first one bestowed by Google.
[flagged]
Experts across the political spectrum say what is happening at the moment is unprecedented in US history.
The only rebuttal I see in the media is that congress set these up to be “independent”. But our government doesn’t have independent branches. In fact that sounds a lot like “unelected and unaccountable”. So which branches are these agencies under? Is it in the judicial, legislative, or executive - and if it’s in the executive why can’t the chief executive manage business? On the other hand, one of the issues brought…
Congress makes lots of rules about how the executive can wield power: * FOIA tells the executive branch when/how to share documents. * APA tells executive agencies what they have to do to make a rule. * Congress gives line item budgets, and the executive doesn't get to reassign funds. * Executive agencies must submit to audits from GAO (within congress) It's perfectly reasonable for congress to limit how executive ag…
This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
Completely incapable of governing is quite some hyperbole. IRA Act, CHIPs Act that got a TSM fab up in record time on American soil, Operation Warp Speed. This kind of rhetoric really just feeds the beast.
It may be a good time to study how Stalin came to power in the USSR. It wasn't through the political establishment, but by taking absolute control of the bureaucracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it was definitely bad that Joe held on so long before letting Kamala run but incumbents lost globally[0], not just here in the US. People aren't happy with the effects COVID had, which is valid, but misplaced the blame which is how we got here. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/global-elections-2024-incumbents-...
It's definitely bad that Democrats could not come up with a single candidate, and a strategy for that candidate, but held on to Biden and then presented Kamala as a saviour when she was a meh candidate at best
This EO, combined with his proclamation that "He who saves the country does not violate any law" paint a very concerning picture. This has, historically speaking, been the language of tyrants. No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary. “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”
This EO says nothing about the Judicial branch and presents a perfectly reasonable policy statement about how legal decisions and interpretation should be made within the executive branch. What specific language in this EO do you have a problem with? I’m no fan of Trump, but this pattern of people hallucinating that Trump said something he didn’t and then freaking out about their nonexistent hallucination, is getting…
This is obviously alarming, and if used to disregard the Judiciary's interpretation of law, unconstitutional. But I'm puzzled by the exemption of the Federal Reserve and FOMC. He's previously beefed with them, and would presumably find the additional leverage useful. Why explicitly exclude them?
Inflation is an extreme handout to the wealthy. Money is by definition zero sum, otherwise the word "inflation" would have no meaning. There are good questions around what an over leveraged loan is, but fundamentally, the supply of money is to some degree fixed at any given moment. The wealthy and powerful keep their money in tax benefited, inflation tracking assets. Many of those assets are stocks, and a major busin…
This EO, combined with his proclamation that "He who saves the country does not violate any law" paint a very concerning picture. This has, historically speaking, been the language of tyrants. No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary. “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”
> nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary Everyone tasked with enforcing a law must necessarily interpret its meaning. The judiciary gets the final say though.
This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
Well... most of them are.