It would serve us to remember that reactionary purges in the 1950s led to a lack of Asia experts which can be connected to how we stumbled into the Vietnam War due to a lack of understanding.
I get a kick out of today's Left. Back in the 1960's and 70's, cracking open and looking inside the CIA, FBI, and other despised agencies would have been a fever dream come true. They would never have believed it. Now that it's happening, these agencies have suddenly become the wondrous protectors of truth and justice. The absurdity is breathtaking.
Back in the 1990s and 1980s, a thrice-divorced Epstein-bestie rapist president who wanted to abandon Europe to Putin, who publicly sexualized his own daughter, who said he needed Hitlerian generals, incited a terror attack on Congress, and launched trade wars, and threatened Canada would have horrified conservatives.
Now suddenly, such a person is the one true protector of patriotism and Christianity. The sellout brainwashing is breathtaking.
Well, this has nothing to do with my post. And the possibility the right (at least partially) is as bad as the left doesn't faze me, since I think all partisans are idiots. Finally this "you're another" argument is a classic fallacy of reasoning, and irrational, as are all arguments of fallacy.
There's simple facts. The sky is blue. That simple enough for you? And those holding left views are on the left. Another simple fact. Who would dispute this? And why?
This is an irrational argument and your holier than thou bullshit is tiring and sad. Parties aren’t the same as they were a decade ago, and even then are far different than the decade before that. Believing there is some girthy consistent through-line that encompasses most of democratic/republican thought through the ages is silly and unserious.
"Over half of the country was born after 1980." So our values die with each generation?
"Parties aren’t the same" That's my point, the corruption of values for political gain.
"Believing... democratic/republican thought through the ages" is not "silly and unserious". It's the opposite. It's what binds citizens together and reinforces their ideals. If you're this cynical, I can see why you would find any moral or rational argument useless.
At what specific point in American history were values ever uncorrupted from their previous evolutions? There is nothing cynical about believing that technological and media advancements transform culture and the way people process information.
If you’re this set on ignoring the points made there’s no conversation to be had.
"If you’re this set on ignoring the points" Where'd you get that? I ignored nothing. Now as for the rest:
"At what specific point in American history were values ever uncorrupted from their previous evolutions?" Umm, our values as set forth in the Declaration? Our values during the Depression? WW2? Nam? The Civil Rights era? Historically our "values" haven't changed at all . What are you talking about?
"There is nothing cynical about believing that technological and media advancements transform culture and the way people process information." This is new age-y babble-speak. If you care to try again I'll respond.
This is what happens when POTUS and the senior officials around him are red-pilled; their actions are directed at things that either aren't real or are hugely exaggerated.
With all the controversy about federal government staffing levels I asked DeepSeek this question.
Does Congress set federal agencies staffing levels or is that task left up to the executive branch?
It’s thinking process:
“First, I think Congress controls the budget. They pass appropriations bills that fund the government. If staffing levels are tied to funding, maybe Congress has a say through the budget.
But the actual hiring and managing of staff is probably done by the agencies themselves, which are part of the executive branch.
Wait, but how exactly does it work?
Maybe Congress sets the overall budget, which includes money for personnel. So they might allocate a certain amount of money for salaries, which would effectively limit how many staff an agency can hire. For example, if an agency has a budget that allows for 1,000 employees, they can't hire more than that without additional funding.
But generally, I think the executive branch has more discretion in how they use their allocated funds, including staffing. However, Congress can influence staffing through funding levels and specific legislative mandates. So the answer might be a combination:
Congress controls the budget which affects staffing levels, but the executive branch manages the actual staffing within those constraints.
Wait, but sometimes there are hiring freezes or increases directed by the President. For example, a President might order agencies to reduce staff or hire more in certain areas. That would be part of the executive branch's management.
So in summary, Congress doesn't directly set the exact number of staff for each agency, but they control the funding that determines how many staff can be hired. The executive branch agencies then manage their staffing within those budgetary limits, unless Congress has specified particular numbers in legislation.“
This response seems to suggest that the president has considerable discretion in determining how many employees are needed to carry out the functions of any agency funded by the Congress.
This shredded flag irks me and is a perfect representation of most of the MAGA flags in my part of deep red Texas; in despicable condition. Makes me think it symbolizes what they think of our democracy.
I would say maybe they are crippling China intelligence ability on purpose but it seems they are just idiots.. or is there someone strategically masking a plan with chaos and idiocy?
Just wrote a piece on why Jack Smith’s silence is the most dangerous thing happening right now—his work is being buried before the public ever sees it.
The courts blocked it. The DOJ won’t act. The media is moving on.
The future of democracy may be in his hands.
Would love to hear your thoughts when you have a minute.
Serious question: how will the Supreme Court weigh its newly minted “major questions doctrine,” which limits the president’s ability to do things not explicitly authorized by Congress, against it unitary executive belief that the president is the only one with authority over the functioning of the executive branch? Since hollowing out or outright dismantling AID or the Education Department might be seen as major actions!
Project 2025 DEI (Donald Elon Incompetence):
- Trump WW3 threats
- Trumpflation trade wars
- aviation safety destroyed
- housing and healthcare costs rising
- 1500+ criminals pardoned and released
- record high egg, coffee, and grocery prices
- teen techbros stealing our bank data and SSN
- farms and businesses that sell to USAID ruined
Trump promised to fix things on day one. Instead, Republicans are destroying America.
It would serve us to remember that reactionary purges in the 1950s led to a lack of Asia experts which can be connected to how we stumbled into the Vietnam War due to a lack of understanding.
I get a kick out of today's Left. Back in the 1960's and 70's, cracking open and looking inside the CIA, FBI, and other despised agencies would have been a fever dream come true. They would never have believed it. Now that it's happening, these agencies have suddenly become the wondrous protectors of truth and justice. The absurdity is breathtaking.
I get a kick out of today's right.
Back in the 1990s and 1980s, a thrice-divorced Epstein-bestie rapist president who wanted to abandon Europe to Putin, who publicly sexualized his own daughter, who said he needed Hitlerian generals, incited a terror attack on Congress, and launched trade wars, and threatened Canada would have horrified conservatives.
Now suddenly, such a person is the one true protector of patriotism and Christianity. The sellout brainwashing is breathtaking.
Well, this has nothing to do with my post. And the possibility the right (at least partially) is as bad as the left doesn't faze me, since I think all partisans are idiots. Finally this "you're another" argument is a classic fallacy of reasoning, and irrational, as are all arguments of fallacy.
Dan is not a leftist.
If you take the Left's side nine out of ten times, you're Left.
That is incredibly reductionist. Have a good one, bye.
No, it's just a simple fact. Good day sir. I said good day : )
There are no simple facts, only simple people.
There's simple facts. The sky is blue. That simple enough for you? And those holding left views are on the left. Another simple fact. Who would dispute this? And why?
Over half of the country was born after 1980.
This is an irrational argument and your holier than thou bullshit is tiring and sad. Parties aren’t the same as they were a decade ago, and even then are far different than the decade before that. Believing there is some girthy consistent through-line that encompasses most of democratic/republican thought through the ages is silly and unserious.
"Over half of the country was born after 1980." So our values die with each generation?
"Parties aren’t the same" That's my point, the corruption of values for political gain.
"Believing... democratic/republican thought through the ages" is not "silly and unserious". It's the opposite. It's what binds citizens together and reinforces their ideals. If you're this cynical, I can see why you would find any moral or rational argument useless.
At what specific point in American history were values ever uncorrupted from their previous evolutions? There is nothing cynical about believing that technological and media advancements transform culture and the way people process information.
If you’re this set on ignoring the points made there’s no conversation to be had.
Have a nice life.
"If you’re this set on ignoring the points" Where'd you get that? I ignored nothing. Now as for the rest:
"At what specific point in American history were values ever uncorrupted from their previous evolutions?" Umm, our values as set forth in the Declaration? Our values during the Depression? WW2? Nam? The Civil Rights era? Historically our "values" haven't changed at all . What are you talking about?
"There is nothing cynical about believing that technological and media advancements transform culture and the way people process information." This is new age-y babble-speak. If you care to try again I'll respond.
I said have a nice life. I’m here to engage with smart people. You’re not worth engaging with
This is what happens when POTUS and the senior officials around him are red-pilled; their actions are directed at things that either aren't real or are hugely exaggerated.
With all the controversy about federal government staffing levels I asked DeepSeek this question.
Does Congress set federal agencies staffing levels or is that task left up to the executive branch?
It’s thinking process:
“First, I think Congress controls the budget. They pass appropriations bills that fund the government. If staffing levels are tied to funding, maybe Congress has a say through the budget.
But the actual hiring and managing of staff is probably done by the agencies themselves, which are part of the executive branch.
Wait, but how exactly does it work?
Maybe Congress sets the overall budget, which includes money for personnel. So they might allocate a certain amount of money for salaries, which would effectively limit how many staff an agency can hire. For example, if an agency has a budget that allows for 1,000 employees, they can't hire more than that without additional funding.
But generally, I think the executive branch has more discretion in how they use their allocated funds, including staffing. However, Congress can influence staffing through funding levels and specific legislative mandates. So the answer might be a combination:
Congress controls the budget which affects staffing levels, but the executive branch manages the actual staffing within those constraints.
Wait, but sometimes there are hiring freezes or increases directed by the President. For example, a President might order agencies to reduce staff or hire more in certain areas. That would be part of the executive branch's management.
So in summary, Congress doesn't directly set the exact number of staff for each agency, but they control the funding that determines how many staff can be hired. The executive branch agencies then manage their staffing within those budgetary limits, unless Congress has specified particular numbers in legislation.“
This response seems to suggest that the president has considerable discretion in determining how many employees are needed to carry out the functions of any agency funded by the Congress.
This shredded flag irks me and is a perfect representation of most of the MAGA flags in my part of deep red Texas; in despicable condition. Makes me think it symbolizes what they think of our democracy.
I would say maybe they are crippling China intelligence ability on purpose but it seems they are just idiots.. or is there someone strategically masking a plan with chaos and idiocy?
Just wrote a piece on why Jack Smith’s silence is the most dangerous thing happening right now—his work is being buried before the public ever sees it.
The courts blocked it. The DOJ won’t act. The media is moving on.
The future of democracy may be in his hands.
Would love to hear your thoughts when you have a minute.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jasonegenberg/p/the-final-battle-for-truth-why-jack?r=3nm35j&utm_medium=ios
Serious question: how will the Supreme Court weigh its newly minted “major questions doctrine,” which limits the president’s ability to do things not explicitly authorized by Congress, against it unitary executive belief that the president is the only one with authority over the functioning of the executive branch? Since hollowing out or outright dismantling AID or the Education Department might be seen as major actions!
Professor Daniel W. Drezner: Loss of Mandarin speakers through indiscriminate firing of, potentially, all operatives of the CIA.
George W. Bush brought war in the Middle East after the CIA had fired its expert linguists in Arabian, because . . . they were homosexual.
Cut off one foot.
Cut off the other.
This Administration has the potential to go . . . nowhere.