81–90 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth, it was part of Project 2025 - something one of the candidates claimed to know nothing about...
I'm sorry but Project 2025 still strikes me as fanfiction
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is “temporary” about stopping corporations from poisoning local ecosystems for profit? What is “temporary” about validating new food or pharmaceutical products?
I’d argue the regulatory unit ought to be temporary while enforcement is ongoing. Permanent organizations are just as ineffective. They did nothing to protect our food supply from ingredients banned in other countries. They did nothing to stop microplastics from taking over the world. So exactly what are they good for while sitting around pontificating for years on end?
Look, I’m all for addressing plastics and unhealthy foods, but is that really the outcome you’re predicting from the organization being discussed and the people running it?
Their words and past actions lead me to believe they are the “pro plastics” “pro unhealthy foods” people, and their effort, rather than some altruistic motivation you ascribe them, is in fact to remove the last vestiges of guardrails, however weak and inept, against them promoting those sorts of things to an even greater degree.
As a person who has no idea what most of the agencies do (exactly what Musk and Ramaswamy are): DHS can easily be folded into the FBI and cuts made TSA is a non-brainer, they don't really provide much security, let airports handle it on a case by case basis Do they really need a NSA and a CIA? Space force - just roll it into the air force Bam - that's probably like 500 billion right there
"As a person who doesn't know anything about this, here are my ideas" is, er, one approach to things, I suppose (as someone else mentioned, you've just given the FBI a fleet of over 2,000 watercraft, which doesn't seem terribly sensible).
This looks horribly like failing to understand Chesterton's fence https://thoughtbot.com/blog/chestertons-fence The agencies were democratically put in place for a reason. Removing them with no public discussion of the original reasoning is deeply undemocratic. At the very least, someone thought that the cost of having them in place was less than the cost to society of not having them there. Has that changed?
I believe that the agencies have lost the trust of the people. This is what happens under bad and corrupt leadership, e.g. forever wars based on a lie, a person with dementia at the top, a candidate for President with no primaries. The danger in this situation is that the DOGE will dismantle the safety mechanisms of the state, some of which depend on the state inertia, i.e. it's much harder to execute a coup when the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wont alter anything, as they are a presidential commission and not a department of the government.
You say this as if Trump will also not be in control of both sides of Congress. All it takes to make this a department of the government is a vote in Congress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't a democracy vote in the people that are saying they want to remove some agencies? Isn't that also how the agencies came to be in the first place?
Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention but deleting agencies was not something I saw discussed at all prior to the election.
This looks horribly like failing to understand Chesterton's fence https://thoughtbot.com/blog/chestertons-fence The agencies were democratically put in place for a reason. Removing them with no public discussion of the original reasoning is deeply undemocratic. At the very least, someone thought that the cost of having them in place was less than the cost to society of not having them there. Has that changed?