You seem to be history buff.
You don’t believe that governments, particularly democratic models, can have full subsets running policy as they see fit? I can’t imagine a lawyer being elected, having any concept the full scale of intelligence being operated. Both because it is hidden, but also because you don’t know what (even that) you don’t know.
I don’t see them being capable of blowing up the Twin Towers. I think if people knew what they were really doing, they would be bored.
“Speaker of the House, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, who is petrified by her Radical Left knowing she will soon be gone (they & Fake News Media are her BOSS), suggested on Sunday’s DEFACE THE NATION…that I testify about the phony Impeachment Witch Hunt,” Mr. Trump tweeted Monday morning. “She also said I could do it in writing. Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!”
I am SO proud of the poise and professionalism of the current occupant of the White House…
Out of curiosity would you rather have a well spoken socialist in office than our current ‘man child’ behaving president?
Also, is there anybody else here that is an actual employer of other people? Again, not knocking opinions, just curious.
Neither.
What is the connection you are making? (Also, just wondering).
I concur… just seems like that’s going to end up being out only choice unless somebody in the democratic field other than the current socialists emerges as the front runner.
I as well as many of my friends are small business owners. All of our businesses are thriving, even more so then under Obama’s policies. We are able to hire more people and are in general doing much better since Trump was elected. I don’t personally like the man, but I am curious to know what everybody’s back ground is regarding the comment makers. Are you self employed, working for the ‘man’, an employer of others etc… Again just curious.
EDIT: Also, I stumbled on this thread by accident as it popped up in active topics. I usually only comment in TRT/Pharma but couldn’t resist to find out what the TNation type demographic had to say.
I am a business owner.
I cannot say that “this is policy under President Obama” and “now THIS is a policy under Trump” that was paramount to whether I thrived or not. There may be industries that can do that; but I can’t.
What I can say (and have often said on this site); is that President Obama was faced his first day in office with the worst financial crisis the World has seen since the Great Depression, with the aftermath being close to 8 years of sluggish recovery.
Unlike President Obama; Trump came into office to an economy that was finally recovering…and now he is “riding the Wave”.
If someone can point me in the direction of a set of policies that he and his economic advisers truly sat down and devised that accounts for our current economy, I will be the first to give Trump credit for where we are now economically.
You make good points regarding the economy and while I could speculate what has made it better under Trump that’s all it would be. Plus I honestly don’t like discussing politics LOL. Anyway, I’ll be following this to see what others think. Thanks for your time and response.
You’re welcome, @blshaw!
I only discuss Politics here…and VERY little in my “real” Life.
“PWI” has always been my “pressure valve” for relieving what is frustrating to me in Politics because it mostly has been fairly well divided in overall opinion.
(Our current Political environment has me extremely frustrated).
There are TIMES when the posting can lean toward a certain narrative…but with time, it all tends to even out.
I am not sure any of them in the democratic field would actually count as socialists. Bernie claims to be a socialist, but I believe he has just started using that label, since his opponents have been using it on him for decades. He is a democratic socialist, but the democratic part removes many of the negatives of socialism (authoritarian), IMO.
Ok, I’m going to take the time to dismantle this particular Fox News talking point.
First of all, you seem to be disputing what is (or was, until the cult of Trump) considered a civilizational achievement - a civil service based on merit.
Secondly, these “subsets” as you call them were actually conducting official US foreign policy.
It was the POTUS who instructed his “task force” that consisted of an elderly lawyer with rapidly declining mental faculties and two small time Soviet-born mobsters to seek help from a who-is-who of the Russian mob, contradicting official US foreign policy.
There are no socialists running.
Not sure why you are ‘taking the time to dismantle’ anything. My statement was generalized and fits relatively well into this idea:
Given their overwhelming number and superior expertise, career civil servants will always be at an enormous advantage in their interactions with political appointees. In many cases, they have decades of experience working on programs or interpreting bodies of law with which political appointees are barely acquainted. If they are so inclined, career civil servants can easily stymie the efforts of a new Administration. By slow-walking new policy initiatives, presenting biased accounts of program performance, or simply not following instructions, bureaucrats can bog down a new administration’s agenda in favor of their own preferences.
Much hinges on how these highly-trained civil servants use the significant discretion Congress often grants them, and it is more important than ever to have a sufficient number of non-career civil servants spread throughout the executive branch. Appointed by the President, often confirmed by the Senate, and serving at the President’s pleasure, political appointees are a critical link between elected officials and the bureaucracy. Without an adequate number of non-career civil servants embedded within the administrative state, public policy may come to reflect the preferences of the career civil service—rather than the preferences of duly-elected officeholders.
Do you share the authors opinion that a large scale ramp up of the size of the federal govt is necessary to fix these problems?
You are taking the conversation down a different path than Does bureaucracy undercut elected officials, but to answer - my understanding was that the suggestion to increase federal employees is with a decrease in contractors. Along with transferring funds from state/local administration back to Federal, so as to prevent selective Federal law enforcement - his ICE example.
So putting same amount of money into different channels.
Perhaps you ought to ask: Can bureaucracy undercut elected officials? Well, yes it can. That’s easy.
But just as is the case with most conspiracy theories, the improbable nature of the secret civil service cabal with tens/hundreds of thousands of operatives and fingers in every fucking pie makes it easy to answer “No” to your original question, at least in this particular instance. I mean, lots of those bureaucrats voted for Trump! The number of people who can and do oppose the elected official(s) in this case cannot even approach the numbers Hannity and Carlson would have you believe. Trump and his followers seem to want to burn every building to get the “rats” in them, never mind all the non-rats they incinerate as collateral.
Political appointees also have to be qualified. Trump’s appointees are often the worst-qualified bunch you could imagine, egregious examples of the patronage system.
Civil servants do not deserve the raw deal they are getting from the new American Right. China benefited immensely from introducing the imperial examination system, bringing meritocracy into the administration of an extensive empire. Here we are, a thousand years later, failing to acknowledge the incredible value of highly-trained and dedicated people in lifelong government service, even vilifying them for no good reason, because of a venal tweet-monster dedicated to owning the libs.
I’ll take a broad reading of “well spoken” to mean calm, thoughtful, knowledgeable about policy, and solid leadership and emotional intelligence skills - in which case, yes, I’d probably prefer that.
As someone who opposes socialism, why would I say that? Because we need someone to do the job of the President competently and with integrity. We don’t have that, and it’s doing lasting damage to our government and our international relationships. That’s a higher priority - character and honor and fidelity to the Constitution* - right now than a candidate’s economic philosophy.
On top of that, this person’s socialism would be contained - Congress wouldn’t be socialist and wouldn’t enact a socialist agenda, so the socialist President would be boxed in and couldn’t do much from that perspective.
Not saying this was your intention, but Trump supporters often try to minimize how bad Trump is by framing Trump as a garden variety Republican who just has a rough “style” - he’s a normal right-wing politician who is just crude and blunt. He’s anything but that - he’s ignorant, unqualified, and corrupt.
*And I can already hear the wailing now - “how could a socialist be devoted to the Constitution???” Pro tip - Bernie Sanders (who I’m no fan of) is better on the Constitution than Trump. You think someone like Sanders would be scoffing at the Emoluments Clause while enriching himself through his public position and giving billions to Saudi Arabia even though Congress rejected the appropriation (separation of powers, etc.)?
It seems highly relevant given that’s the supposed fix
I understand what his suggestion was. It’s a really simple and straightforward concept. My question was whether or not you agree that’s the correct course of action.
Have you read any of the financial news and the impact to the stock markets if Warren even nails the nomination let alone wins the election?