641–650 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump also rubbished the trade deals that he himself signed!
To be fair it's unlikely he knew what he was signing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further. Are you sure this is going to be a fact, in the future? How likely is it, that the next elections will still be (somewhat) fair?
That's the reaction some extreme Trump supporters I know had after 2020. They claimed there would never be another fair election because of the manipulation of the electronic voting machines
There were a bunch of people who are easily tricked who latched onto the election fraud claims by habitual liars. That doesn't make the claims true.
I really don't understand what you are trying to do other than distract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took it to mean that agencies no longer have the final say in interpretations of law when it comes to exercising executive power. So for instance if ATF says a banana is a machine gun and the president says "yes", then barring an act of Congress clarifying, it is. I don't see how you go from there to the end of judicial review?
Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. This same assumption of good faith was wholly present in peoples' responses to project 2025 prior to the election. They are not acting in good faith. Try restating the problem: Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? EDIT: For those who do not think this contributes any…
It explains itself in Section 1; pretty much all the above the fold material is on exactly that topic. Trump & friends are taking the interpretation that the US presidential election is a vote on how the executive government is to be run.
As an extension of that, they're pulling power away from the unelected bureaucracy back towards the office of president - because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president.
> What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?
It doesn't change anything about judicial review. The thing they're targeting is parts of the executive acting independently of the president; which given the behaviour of the intelligence services is probably targeted at them but might be aimed at any of the bureaucrats.
Whether it is a good idea long term is a complex question though. This looks like an area where the separation of powers gets to murky territory. It is hard to have separation of powers given how much of it has been given to the president over the last century - the small-government strategy was a better approach than what the US has set up here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Since 2016, leftist democrats have promised that if only the democratic party moves far left enough, they will unlock some kind of secret progressive majority. This has been repudiated at every turn, most resoundingly in the last presidential election. The demographics that the leftist democrats had appointed themselves the saviors of went over to Trump, along with the tech industry which had formerly been a huge…
Perhaps the winning formula of the Obama years was the absence of rampant social media use and the spread of propaganda / misinformation at the time. Not saying those things did not exist - but they did not have the ability to spread like wildfire compared to today.
Basically, our elected representatives picked social media news sources as preferred trusted sources, and the groups interested in getting information and misinformation to them followed suit.
I think it's highly likely that the Democratic party will never govern the United States again. Every single move the current government is making increasingly seems to be a clever way to stack the chips in their favor in perpetuity. We seem to be living though the backstory of how some far-off sci-fi civilization came to be, replete with greedy tech corps in the ears and pockets of narcissistic leaders. The irony is…
>I think it's highly likely that the Democratic party will never govern the United States again. I think they will when climate change comes knocking (I'm assuming the US will double down on carbon for some incredible short-term profit). Or at least some version of the democrats i.e. whatever is on the other side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no more FOIA - Musk had their entire office fired and disbanded.
There is no central FOIA office. Each agency has is responsible for their own FOIA requests. IF you are referring to this news story [1] That was just the FOIA office at OPM. [1] https://www.commondreams.org/news/cnn-foia-office-of-personn...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch' That's basically what EOs are already.
But you need to combine it with the fact that a whole bunch of agencies e.g. FCC, SEC are now no longer considered independent from the Executive Branch. It’s the combination of actions that makes this so concerning.
Yes, the expanse of power is concerning. Historically, all three branches have substantially expanded their powers since inception. People in power always seem to take more of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you need to combine it with the fact that a whole bunch of agencies e.g. FCC, SEC are now no longer considered independent from the Executive Branch. It’s the combination of actions that makes this so concerning.
One thing I'm interested in that they didn't cover in school, if there's 3 branches of government, then what branch were the independent agencies a part of before being moved into the executive? Yes, the expanse of power is concerning. Historically, all three branches have substantially expanded their powers since inception. People in power always seem to take more of it.
And what is happening is unprecedented and right to be concerned about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. This same assumption of good faith was wholly present in peoples' responses to project 2025 prior to the election. They are not acting in good faith. Try restating the problem: Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? EDIT: For those who do not think this contributes any…
> Why is this EO being issued? It explains itself in Section 1; pretty much all the above the fold material is on exactly that topic. Trump & friends are taking the interpretation that the US presidential election is a vote on how the executive government is to be run. As an extension of that, they're pulling power away from the unelected bureaucracy back towards the office of president - because a vote can't change…
That's only mildly true, and the belief of micromanagers everywhere. Ultimately, you need to set an overall direction and then let people execute within that framework, or you're going to get something that's badly run and slow as molasses.
With a nuanced interpretation, this EO even might make some amount of sense (a bit more overview/stricter guidelines). But wherever you stand politically, you can't accuse the current administration to have a sense of nuance.
And, of course, if you want to assume the worst, it's fair to point out that the EO removes all independence without having to spell out any guidelines, which means a world without guidelines and on-a-whim decisions is well possible. That's not a good thing for a regulatory environment. Or a democracy.
And that's the biggest problem - because even if the current administration has only noble goals (and I really don't want to debate this either way, let's skip that comment stream), this XO is massively ripe for abuse for people with non-noble intentions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took it to mean that agencies no longer have the final say in interpretations of law when it comes to exercising executive power. So for instance if ATF says a banana is a machine gun and the president says "yes", then barring an act of Congress clarifying, it is. I don't see how you go from there to the end of judicial review?
If the Supreme Court rules against the Executive, they might order an agency to comply with a ruling or - barring that - hold an agency head in contempt. Under this EO, the agency wouldn't comply, since the agency would assume Trump's read of the law is correct - superceding even the Court's. If they tried to enforce a contempt order, the US Marshals would not comply either. Soldiers that swear allegiance to the Cons…
This order tells executive branch employees, including the police and court officers, that they are required to follow POTUS interpretations over all others. Implicitly that includes over court interpretations.