5 ms·

>>despite all the "Deep State" nonsense You believe it is nonsense? I figured it was just generally understood that the President is more or less powerless re

by syshum 5y ago

>>despite all the "Deep State" nonsense You believe it is nonsense? I figured it was just generally understood that the President is more or less powerless really at this point, This is not new under Trump, hell this really was that way before 9/11 but accelerated ALOT after. NSA, CIA, FBI, etc do not really answer to elected officials, I am surprised people still believe they do

rougka 5y ago
Life is not binary, just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless
worik 5y ago
Life is not binary, just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless The USA system was designed to balance powers between the three branches of government. Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy
- syshum 5y ago
  >Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense"
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense" "Deep State" implies more than acknowledging the bureaucracy. It's the claim that the bureaucracy is unresponsive to, or even controlling over, our elected leaders. (And presumably, the courts, though I don't tend to see that part addressed in common tellings.) If you don't believe the latter bit, using the term "deep state" unnecessarily tarnishes the credibility of your argument. (Federal bureaucracy is a more neutral term.)
  - xxpor 5y ago
    It responds perfectly well to people that understand its knobs. But when you elect a guy who's never been in a government position before, is it really any surprise he can't bend it to his will? It's like if you pulled someone random off the street and made them CEO of a Fortune 500. Do you think the entire org would just turn on a dime and listen to them? No chance.
    - syshum 5y ago
      There is a bit of unrealistic faith there... even if a president knows how to turn the knobs the bureaucracy has its own beliefs and positions, and can absolutely slow things down to where it is impossible to make the change if the bureaucracy does not agree with the change So sure it may not be outright insubordination, but the result is the same They can also use other levers to ensure any they dislike fails, etc.... This is the deep state, where if the bureaucracy does not like a policy they can and do resist it.
      - xxpor 5y ago
        Seems like that'd be a good incentive to not align your political axis around educated vs uneducated. As for simply installing uneducated people in the bureaucracy instead, that's how you end up with the Soviet Union.
        syshum 5y ago
        I am not sure where educated vs uneducated comes into play here. I know the media seems to play this up and it seems you buy into this narrative. Also I resist the idea that attaining a degree, any degree, qualifies as "educated" and anyone that has not attained a degree is "uneducated" that type of credentialism leads to all kinds of negative outcomes, and false assumptions. Which is the metric the media uses to label the electorate is "educated" or "uneducated". There are a huge number of people that have high levels of informal education, and there are people that have degree's that one can objectively argue are uneducated by any reasonable measure. So over all I reject completely on different levels the entire premise of your comment
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless In fact, the US people specifically don't want and prevent a monarchy, as you say ... > The USA system was designed to balance powers between the three branches of government. > Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy Bureaucracy isn't a fourth branch, it's the laws made by prior governments. You don't get to start fresh; you are the steward of an ongoing institution. The American people, through representatives, made laws that define what the executive branch must, can, and cannot do. Bureaucracy is, in a sense, the execution of those laws. A new president may not like those laws, but that's the job - to carry out the will of the people.
  - syshum 5y ago
    ROFL.. that is rich.. No the US Congress in their political cowardliness passes objectives they wish to see, they then empower unconstitutionally the executive branch to create numerous "administrative laws" to achieve those objectives. The Supreme Court refuses to strike down these vague laws as unconstitutional, which over the decades has grown the bureaucracy exponentially until we have at present what is in effect a 4th branch of government not answerable to any of the 3 official branch, not with out wide reaching reform, and upending of governmental structure. >>You don't get to start fresh; This is where the I wish Jefferson would have gotten his way.. "The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right." -- Thomas Jefferson... We should start fresh every 19 years
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      If mockery was an argument, we wouldn't need any others. It doesn't strengthen reasons, it renders them moot. I wish we could have had a serious discussion and moved things forward a little.
fulafel 5y ago
Concentrating power in hands of a president is not really a widely shared democratic ideal. In the US the president has exceptional powers compared to almost all other democracies.
- syshum 5y ago
  I dont believe I said anything about concentrating the power into the hands of the president. If anything the 4th branch was created by the congress, and its continued existence is allowed because the US Supreme Court will not stop the congress from unconstitutionally passing vague goal based laws instead of actual legislation that proscribes exactly what the executive branch is to execute. Instead they give the executive branch broad "goals" to achieve to be achieve by means and methods to be determined by the unelected administrative state This unchecked power is also not an democratic ideal.

by syshum 5y ago

rougka 5y ago

Life is not binary, just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless

worik 5y ago

Life is not binary, just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless The USA system was designed to balance powers between the three branches of government. Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy

syshum 5y ago
>Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense"
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense" "Deep State" implies more than acknowledging the bureaucracy. It's the claim that the bureaucracy is unresponsive to, or even controlling over, our elected leaders. (And presumably, the courts, though I don't tend to see that part addressed in common tellings.) If you don't believe the latter bit, using the term "deep state" unnecessarily tarnishes the credibility of your argument. (Federal bureaucracy is a more neutral term.)
- xxpor 5y ago
  It responds perfectly well to people that understand its knobs. But when you elect a guy who's never been in a government position before, is it really any surprise he can't bend it to his will? It's like if you pulled someone random off the street and made them CEO of a Fortune 500. Do you think the entire org would just turn on a dime and listen to them? No chance.
  - syshum 5y ago
    There is a bit of unrealistic faith there... even if a president knows how to turn the knobs the bureaucracy has its own beliefs and positions, and can absolutely slow things down to where it is impossible to make the change if the bureaucracy does not agree with the change So sure it may not be outright insubordination, but the result is the same They can also use other levers to ensure any they dislike fails, etc.... This is the deep state, where if the bureaucracy does not like a policy they can and do resist it.
    - xxpor 5y ago
      Seems like that'd be a good incentive to not align your political axis around educated vs uneducated. As for simply installing uneducated people in the bureaucracy instead, that's how you end up with the Soviet Union.
      - syshum 5y ago
        I am not sure where educated vs uneducated comes into play here. I know the media seems to play this up and it seems you buy into this narrative. Also I resist the idea that attaining a degree, any degree, qualifies as "educated" and anyone that has not attained a degree is "uneducated" that type of credentialism leads to all kinds of negative outcomes, and false assumptions. Which is the metric the media uses to label the electorate is "educated" or "uneducated". There are a huge number of people that have high levels of informal education, and there are people that have degree's that one can objectively argue are uneducated by any reasonable measure. So over all I reject completely on different levels the entire premise of your comment
wolverine876 5y ago
> just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless In fact, the US people specifically don't want and prevent a monarchy, as you say ... > The USA system was designed to balance powers between the three branches of government. > Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy Bureaucracy isn't a fourth branch, it's the laws made by prior governments. You don't get to start fresh; you are the steward of an ongoing institution. The American people, through representatives, made laws that define what the executive branch must, can, and cannot do. Bureaucracy is, in a sense, the execution of those laws. A new president may not like those laws, but that's the job - to carry out the will of the people.
- syshum 5y ago
  ROFL.. that is rich.. No the US Congress in their political cowardliness passes objectives they wish to see, they then empower unconstitutionally the executive branch to create numerous "administrative laws" to achieve those objectives. The Supreme Court refuses to strike down these vague laws as unconstitutional, which over the decades has grown the bureaucracy exponentially until we have at present what is in effect a 4th branch of government not answerable to any of the 3 official branch, not with out wide reaching reform, and upending of governmental structure. >>You don't get to start fresh; This is where the I wish Jefferson would have gotten his way.. "The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right." -- Thomas Jefferson... We should start fresh every 19 years
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    If mockery was an argument, we wouldn't need any others. It doesn't strengthen reasons, it renders them moot. I wish we could have had a serious discussion and moved things forward a little.

fulafel 5y ago

Concentrating power in hands of a president is not really a widely shared democratic ideal. In the US the president has exceptional powers compared to almost all other democracies.

syshum 5y ago
I dont believe I said anything about concentrating the power into the hands of the president. If anything the 4th branch was created by the congress, and its continued existence is allowed because the US Supreme Court will not stop the congress from unconstitutionally passing vague goal based laws instead of actual legislation that proscribes exactly what the executive branch is to execute. Instead they give the executive branch broad "goals" to achieve to be achieve by means and methods to be determined by the unelected administrative state This unchecked power is also not an democratic ideal.