• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

And not unconstitutional at all!
We’ll wait and see what they actually do. The label of the office and the administration establishing it raises my eyebrows, but there have been White House offices concerned with matters of faith before including under Biden. It will be actions taken that matter.
 
Americans voted for the wrecking ball. They are now getting a view into the massive amount of corruption and grift involving their tax dollars. The establishment fails to understand they are living in a new world now where they no longer control the message or the institutions. Immediate court action that halts these audits will be short lived and only piss off the public more than they already are.
 
Americans voted for the wrecking ball. They are now getting a view into the massive amount of corruption and grift involving their tax dollars. The establishment fails to understand they are living in a new world now where they no longer control the message or the institutions. Immediate court action that halts these audits will be short lived and only piss off the public more than they already are.
An electoral mandate does not exempt the executive branch from the law. It does not usurp the proper role of congress in oversight.

It’s the prerogative of the executive to act within its lawful authorities. That’s fine. There are real concerns, which are finding support in court, that they are exceeding those authorities. That’s how this work. Congress has the power of the purse, is also elected, and has empowered different branches and bodies to do things with legislatively authorized appropriations. For the executive to go against that, they have to make sure their legal ducks are in a row.

The tech bros being imported by the nascent oligarchy do not have their legal ducks in a row.
 
Fighting over transparency is the wrong fight to choose. It's already evident that AI tools can be used to quickly trace relationships and flows in data in ways that would confound small armies of ordinary people. That has some people worried, but that shit isn't going back into the horse. "Security by obscurity" is dead among agencies laundering public funding into activist organizations. People writing rules ("code") don't need to see operational data and customarily work with test cases, often by the simple expedient of anonymizing operational data. Separating the analysts from the data is not going to be a serious obstruction. Meanwhile the guardians look like they have something to hide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV
"Security by obscurity" is dead among agencies laundering public funding into activist organizations.
Using congressionally approved funding to provide money to programs that meet the objectives of the administration is not "funding activist organizations".
They are now getting a view into the massive amount of corruption and grift involving their tax dollars.
Oh really? Care to share any examples? Because all I've seen is theme "exposing" funding for programs that right wing bigots don't like. I use quotes there because none of this is actually secret information, it's just the MAGA proles are to lazy to pay attention and look for themselves.
 
You see different news than 100M other people.

Trump has forced the democrats to defend wasteful spending at best, and money laundering at worst.

That funding clearly no longer meets the objectives of the current administration.
 
In a further move to cement the enshittification of government, Trump’s offering nearly the entire federal public service a 7 months’ salary buyout as a RIF. Gonna be a lot of workers with the best prospects leaving the feds behind.

The problem is that the buyout is for seven months, but government funding is only good until March. A second problem is speculation that the Office of Personnel Management may not have authority to make this offer. Watch and see.
“White House faith office”. Neat.
In Soviet Russia they were called Politico Officers/Commissars.
 
Using congressionally approved funding to provide money to programs that meet the objectives of the administration is not "funding activist organizations".
These two things can simultaneously be true: the funding is congressionally approved, and the funding goes to activist organizations. DOGE is piggybacking on the USDS (US Digital Service). All the geeks without clearances need to do is provide tools that can analyze record trails and spit the pathways out. Others with clearances can run the tools on the data (and can also provide anonymized data to the geeks). The results might have only the verisimilitude of suspicion, but can be provided to people to verify the audit trails for government departments, courts, and legislators. Executive and legislative action can then be taken.

Right now the DOGE team probably has appropriated the authority to execute too many of those steps, but the general idea is uncontroversial. Any data government owns, it may analyze. If courts require original documents, the analysis tools can suggest where it lies or identify it outright. That's the part that has grifters and activists worried. If the burden is on reformers to puzzle out obtuse information trails by hand, their output is going to be low, and burdened additionally by obstructionists. With automated analytical tools, targets for cuts can probably be identified faster than they can be verified and actioned. It won't matter how lazy people are, and that problem then falls on program defenders, who may be overwhelmed by the volume of cases and will suffer the additional handicap of explaining egregious funding.
 
I’m sure if I went through every line item of a $100 billion budget, I could cherry pick all kinds of examples of dodgy programs getting taxpayer lucre. It doesn’t mean the whole agency needs to nuked. Investigate the dodgy programs. Deal with those responsible as appropriate.

If the Dems had George Soros running around government doing this, everyone to the right of Karl Marx would rightly be lighting their hair on fire.

These guys aren’t reformers. Their arsonists.
 
Fighting over transparency is the wrong fight to choose. It's already evident that AI tools can be used to quickly trace relationships and flows in data in ways that would confound small armies of ordinary people.
Assuming the algorithms and those setting them up get it right - like Google Translate (to oversimplify).
That has some people worried, but that shit isn't going back into the horse.
True dat - for better or worse.
 
An electoral mandate does not exempt the executive branch from the law. It does not usurp the proper role of congress in oversight.
And there are plenty of Trump voters that voted thinking he would not do half the stuff he said he’d also voted for him anyway. Some FAFO the hard way that he needed to be taken seriously.

A few people said to stop panicking over project 2025…right.
 
It's comforting to see that the leader of the free world is laser-focused on the important matters.


 
Following DOGE's boss' money, too, then? ;)
Can ya blame some people wondering "Henhouse, this is callsign Fox, over"?
 
It's comforting to see that the leader of the free world is laser-focused on the important matters.



Are you suggesting he hasn’t been doing much else these past few weeks?
 
Following DOGE's boss' money, too, then? ;)

Can ya blame some people wondering "Henhouse, this is callsign Fox, over"?
There are three common courses of action to defend public expenditures:
  • defend each case rationally
  • personalize the conflict
  • highlight the most sympathetic cases in the media ("think of the children")

CoA 1 is conspicuously absent.

Defenders of status quo could probably preserve the useful expenditures by co-operating in removing the egregious ones, and doing so expeditiously. Instead, their response to an attack on everything is to try to defend everything with the political equivalent of a decapitation strike. Public opinion is not on their side.
 
And here comes a predictable and predicted next step- pushing to buck or otherwise disable the courts from curbing executive overreach:


 
And here comes a predictable and predicted next step- pushing to buck or otherwise disable the courts from curbing executive overreach:


The flaw here, is apparent in Vance's own words, "executive's legitimate power." The role of the judiciary is, on application by an interested party, to test whether or not the executive power being exercised is a legitimate one or whether it is in conflict with the constitution or any other existing federal legislation.

Judges may be unelected, but they are appointed by the executive and vetted by the Senate so are given their legitimacy by the other two branches of government. While Vance's statement is not incorrect, it is of a rabble-rousing nature, which shows he needs a refresher in American civics 101.

🍻
 
Back
Top