Dept. of Gov. Efficiency

exchemist said:
That’s criticism of the way Americans are brought up, by an American. It expresses “intense dislike” for half his compatriots, with reasons given. I can’t see how self-criticism constitutes hate speech, myself.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of that bit from Spinal Tap. A record company executive says that they won't print the cover of their album. Their manager asks why not. She tells him "lan, you put a greased, naked woman on all fours with a dog collar around her neck and a leash, and a man's arm extended out up to here holding onto the leash and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it. You don't find that offensive and sexist?"

Later the manager tells the band about this, and one band member asks why another band had a similar cover approved by the same record company. This cover showed the (scantily clad) lead singer of the band strapped down to a table with beautiful women all around him. Isn't that the same, he asked? The manager tells him that since it was the lead singer, not a woman, strapped to the table, that was different.

"It's the small things, isn't it?" remarks one band member, clearly not getting the difference.
 
Latest update from the Parasite-digested Brain Cavity:


"My uncle started USAID in 1961 for humanitarian purposes to put our country on the side of the poor. It has been captured by the military industrial complex. It has become a sinister propagator of totalitarianism across, and war, across the globe, and very few people understand how sinister this agency really is. And President Trump saw that and he stood up to it with a master stroke, and we want to do the same thing with the institutions that are stealing the health of our children."

- Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The robust health of large, plump, juicy lies, however, is peaking. JFK is surely spinning in his grave by now.
 
Has anyone checked out the websites for Doge? The official website is a single page with no links--basically, just the name and a logo. Then there's an unofficial site, accessible through X, which has a couple of graphs and charts, pilfered from other sources, and a bunch of lame merch--much of which includes proprietary material that these idiots undoubtedly did not license.

So much for Musk's "maximal transparency". Doge is as much about trolling as it is about creating genuine devastation and chaos.

Edit: My bad, there's some actual info in the X/Twitter feed, or whatever it's called, but certainly no evidence of fraud.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
That’s criticism of the way Americans are brought up, by an American. It expresses “intense dislike” for half his compatriots, with reasons given. I can’t see how self-criticism constitutes hate speech, myself.
Click to expand...
Here is Bernie Sanders saying pretty much the same thing that I said in the quoted passage. Sanders, understandably, focuses upon the oligarchs and not the general populace; nevertheless, the attitudes and senitments are shared by the millions who support and enable these people.

Start at 10.10:
 
And a modest profile in courage pops up in Pennsylvania....


Pennsylvania Rep. Rob Bresnahan is the latest swing-district Republican to issue a warning over deep spending cuts GOP leaders are targeting for key safety net programs in a bill to enact President Donald Trump's massive domestic agenda.

“I ran for Congress under a promise of always doing what is best for the people of Northeastern Pennsylvania,” said Bresnahan in a statement Friday. “If a bill is put in front of me that guts the benefits my neighbors rely on, I will not vote for it. Pennsylvania’s Eighth District chose me to advocate for them in Congress. These benefits are promises that were made to the people of NEPA and where I come from, people keep their word.”

(though "swing district" may be a larger factor than raw courage)
 
parmalee said:
Here is Bernie Sanders saying pretty much the same thing that I said in the quoted passage. Sanders, understandably, focuses upon the oligarchs and not the general populace; nevertheless, the attitudes and senitments are shared by the millions who support and enable these people.

Start at 10.10:
Click to expand...
Wow. I thought Saunders was a bit too old when he ran a few years ago.
What a fantastic speech.
 
TheVat said:
The department is responsible for designing, building and overseeing the US nuclear weapons stockpile.
Click to expand...
No one could have foreseen that firing the people who maintain our nuclear weapons could have negative consequences! It's not Trump's fault at all; it was completely unpredictable.
 
TheVat said:
And a modest profile in courage pops up in Pennsylvania....


Pennsylvania Rep. Rob Bresnahan is the latest swing-district Republican to issue a warning over deep spending cuts GOP leaders are targeting for key safety net programs in a bill to enact President Donald Trump's massive domestic agenda.

“I ran for Congress under a promise of always doing what is best for the people of Northeastern Pennsylvania,” said Bresnahan in a statement Friday. “If a bill is put in front of me that guts the benefits my neighbors rely on, I will not vote for it. Pennsylvania’s Eighth District chose me to advocate for them in Congress. These benefits are promises that were made to the people of NEPA and where I come from, people keep their word.”

(though "swing district" may be a larger factor than raw courage)
Click to expand...
But this betrays more pre-putsch thinking. There are not going to be any bills put in front of him. It is already clear Trump’s junta will rule by executive order, sidelining the legislature. So as far as courage goes, it’s an empty vow. He may know that.
 
exchemist said:
But this betrays more pre-putsch thinking. There are not going to be any bills put in front of him. It is already clear Trump’s junta will rule by executive order, sidelining the legislature. So as far as courage goes, it’s an empty vow. He may know that.
Click to expand...
It can always be performative, for sure. However, I'm not sure a POTUS can allocate or withdraw specific line-item funds where Congress is writing a budget, by means of EO. And the SCOTUS has so far ruled the line-item veto (where the POTUS partially passes a bill while scratching out pieces) to be unconstitutional. So we're at the point where it's a question of how far SCOTUS would go in answering such a constitutional challenge. Is Trump lying when he says he still will respect SCOTUS as the final word? Possibly. If he does ignore SCOTUS, then it will be a coup, Congress and the judiciary will be dead in terms of separation of powers, and the US will be a dictatorship under martial law. Possibly this will prove more difficult than the toddler believes.
 
TheVat said:
It can always be performative, for sure. However, I'm not sure a POTUS can allocate or withdraw specific line-item funds where Congress is writing a budget, by means of EO. And the SCOTUS has so far ruled the line-item veto (where the POTUS partially passes a bill while scratching out pieces) to be unconstitutional. So we're at the point where it's a question of how far SCOTUS would go in answering such a constitutional challenge. Is Trump lying when he says he still will respect SCOTUS as the final word? Possibly. If he does ignore SCOTUS, then it will be a coup, Congress and the judiciary will be dead in terms of separation of powers, and the US will be a dictatorship under martial law. Possibly this will prove more difficult than the toddler believes.
Click to expand...
Well, but that’s just it, actually not under martial law.

I’ve been starting to think for a while that the army may get involved if this coup attempt goes to completion. But perhaps on the side of preserving the constitution. There is no evidence I’m aware of that the top brass are Trumpies, and Milley of course played a critical role in slapping down Trump’s last coup attempt. I can see a scenario in which, if Trump et al defy the courts and the DoJ instructs the marshals not to enforce their rulings, the army steps in and says, right, this is unconstitutional and we will enforce the rulings of the US courts. And you can’t stop the US army with a few bearded guys with MAGA caps and guns.

Boy, would I cheer for the US army if that happened.
 
Yep, worth noting that those in our military services swear their oath to defend the Constitution and NOT the POTUS. IOW, and several brass have pointed this out, if a rogue president issues an order as Commander in Chief which violates the Constitution then the military has a sworn obligation to disobey. Some of what happens then depends on Congress and how the Posse Comitatus Act is interpreted in specific conflicts. I might have to head for the basement...
 
TheVat said:
Yep, worth noting that those in our military services swear their oath to defend the Constitution and NOT the POTUS. IOW, and several brass have pointed this out, if a rogue president issues an order as Commander in Chief which violates the Constitution then the military has a sworn obligation to disobey. Some of what happens then depends on Congress and how the Posse Comitatus Act is interpreted in specific conflicts. I might have to head for the basement...
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. I bet these MAGA types would melt away like, er, snowflakes :) if the US army says it means to enforce the constitution. I think Trump’s team would make a fuss but then back down when the tanks roll down Pennsylvania Avenue.
 
The oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

........................
OK
when I was inducted, circa October 27 1967,
I never swore the oath
It seemed(to me) that there could arise a conflict within that oath, so. I dropped my hand and quit speaking.
But, this was during VietNam, and the military was desperate for more "warm bodies", so, my refusal to swear to something which I couldn't comprehend did not matter.
When I was being vetted for my top secret clearance(so I could work under raven rock mountain), I shared the above with my interviewers, who also seemed to think that it did not matter.

One wonders as to the value of oaths that do not matter.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Wow. I thought Saunders was a bit too old when he ran a few years ago.
What a fantastic speech.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Unfortunately, he plans to retire at the end of this term.

There's really no one quite like him and, to me personally, at least, he is more relatable and familiar than just about anyone, ever in politics. There's a Curb Your Enthusiasm in which the actress, Sienna Miller, is contemplating converting to Judaism and Larry David, sort of a weird doppleganger of Sanders, asks her, "Are you prepared to complain a lot?" Technically, one could characterize Sanders as a "complainer", I suppose, but really he's righteously railing against all forms of systemic economic oppression--something which is sorely lacking amongst Democrats (Sanders is actually an Independent), and, obviously, not even a concern for Republicans. There's a few--Elizabeth Warren, AOC, et al, even Katie Porter--but no one is quite as "in your face" as Sanders.

I'm not overly optimistic about anyone taking his place when he's gone.
 
exchemist said:
I don’t think so. I bet these MAGA types would melt away like, er, snowflakes :) if the US army says it means to enforce the constitution.
Click to expand...
If the powers that be decided Trump is in fact incapable and tramping all over the constitution/congress they could use the 25th amendment.
The down side is Vance would have to step in and he is a right wing, gun toting, anti abortion, homophobic, Christian nut job.

I'm not sure that would be much of an improvement. Plus Elon Master of coin would still be pulling the purse strings, so in the unlikely event of any of that happening, the agenda of madness would continue.
They are stuck with it.
A few law suits are taking place regarding research grants but with SCOTUS also in Trump's corner, they will probably hit a wall too.
Complete control.
 
Pinball1970 said:
A few law suits are taking place regarding research grants but with SCOTUS also in Trump's corner, they will probably hit a wall too.
Click to expand...
The only ray of light with SCROTUS is that six of the justices are not Trump selected and are sometimes known to be conservative in ways that don't favor the MAGA wrecking ball approach to government.

Justices have a long history of "growing into the office," and departing from the partisan frameworks of their appointing POTUS. Anthony Kennedy was an example of this.
 
parmalee said:
There's really no one quite like him and, to me personally, at least, he is more relatable and familiar than just about anyone, ever in politics. There's a Curb Your Enthusiasm in which the actress, Sienna Miller, is contemplating converting to Judaism and Larry David, sort of a weird doppleganger of Sanders, asks her, "Are you prepared to complain a lot?" Technically, one could characterize Sanders as a "complainer", I suppose, but really he's righteously railing against all forms of systemic economic oppression--something which is sorely lacking amongst Democrats
Click to expand...


Sanders makes me think of a guy who, if the diner serves him soup and it's too salty, he will have it sent back. Because how else will we have decent soup if cooks don't get enough feedback?

I'm a Bernie fan. He has this charming quaint idea that politicians should dedicate themselves to serving the people.
 
I think Bernie is like Jimmy Carter and AOC, well-meaning, a preacher of his beliefs with little experience under the economic system that he lives under. Before politics he volunteered at a kibbutz for a few months, worked as a union carpenter and it's been politics ever sense.

In terms of his personal character he is the closest to what we should expect of our politicians. His beliefs just aren't based on the economic system that he lives under. His speech (well delivered) just repeats the usual narrative such as "the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer". Which is both not true and irrelevant. The rich are getting richer (how could it be otherwise) but the poor aren't getting poorer.

I do agree with him about universal health care. Much of the rest is just his belief that somehow the poor should have more and the rich should have less. Of course the campaign finance system is corrupt as are the politicians who allow that. Being elected to Congress basically just means perpetual fund raising rather than real governing.

How much Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg have combined is irrelevant. Yes, Trump, Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg as a political group isn't a good look. To me unions aren't a good look either but it is what it is.

Saunders mentions childhood poverty and health care but we have Medicaid for all poor mothers and children below the age of 18. Our population isn't as homogenous as Norway, Demark and some other the other countries frequently used as comparisons.

Child poverty in the US is 13% and it's 20% in France. It's much higher in Romania. It's great that it's good in Norway and Denmark but it's just not the complete picture. His views are more belief than reality.

He mentions that most of the rich are self-made and he relates how poor some are and tries to tie that to the rich? If you start a company, issue shares, it happens to be the 1 in a million that is wildly successful, then the value of your shares goes up.

That's money coming from investors who are willing to pay more and more for a successful company. That's not the poor getting poorer because investors are buying more and more shares of Amazon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top