11 ms·

Does anyone else find it odd, that this type of access would typically require training and/or a background check, yet here we are 12 days after this administra

Does anyone else find it odd, that this type of access would typically require training and/or a background check, yet here we are 12 days after this administration was sworn in? Are there no checks and balances in place? Seems like one side that won the popular vote has taken the entire spectrum of action, regardless if they need to govern for an entire nation.

ranger_danger 2y ago
> Are there no checks and balances in place? All it takes for bad people to win, is for good people to do nothing.
- kcplate 2y ago
  > is for good people to do nothing Or for good people to run shitty candidates that can’t win the election
  - ty6853 2y ago
    A big purpose of primaries is a sanity check for election suitability. Unfortunately whatever elites shit-canned Biden forgot that they need primaries almost as much as the people do.
blendo 2y ago
It appears there are no checks and balances in place. Congress could impeach, or the Supreme Court could enjoin (is that the word?), but I see no prospect of either happening soon.
- b0sk 2y ago
  Remember that they are all controlled by one party, so everyone is willing to look the other way (and cynically, probably cheerleading it)
- nicce 2y ago
  Didn’t Trump just remove those checks? Or maybe this is something else: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/21/politics/trump-temporary-security-clearances/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/21/politics/trump-temporary-...
- scarab92 2y ago
  It would help if people could outline exactly what they are concerned about. As far as I can tell, nothing that that Musk et al is doing is unusual when an organisation changes hands. This is normal for a change of government or a corporate aquisition. Perhaps there should be certain, limited, aspects of executive decision making that require congressional oversight, but because left weren't decrying the lack of checks and balances previously, they now come across as sore losers, worse, dishonest sore losers who are cloaking their pettiness as concern. Secondly, the left lost the public support so badly that the republicans control congress now, so even if such oversight existed, it would also be controlled by the republican party.
  - quantified 2y ago
    Huh? This isn't a corporation, nothing about corporate change of control applies. Political, not civil, servants taking over these systems without any oversight is truly brazen. Sounds like you're saying that since there wasn't a prior act of Congress declaring this illegal, it's just whining. Please clarify. You're right that oversight would be influenced by the party in power. Generally, the inspectors general would be relatively independent but guess what, they all got sacked just a few days ago. And Republican congresspeople behave as if they represent the president, not their constituents. The system functioned with some level of decorum before, but this looks like war.
    - scarab92 2y ago
      The actions that are being taken by Trump, Musk and co is normal in both governmental and corporate organisations when a change of control occurs. Oversight in these systems tends to be illusory, because for the executive branch to function it fundamnetally needs to have the authority to make the decisions that are currently being made. The Democrats have, broadly speaking, not cared much for oversight when they were in power, so suddenly caring about it now that republicans are in power comes across as, and probably is, just them being sore losers.
      - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
ty6853 2y ago
This system is squarely in the hands of the executive. The elected executive handed access to DOGE, as he advertised in his campaign. This is so squarely and fairly a democratic action it defies logic this is even worth taking note of. This is what the people, who the government is beholden to, explicitly asked for. Tyranny would be NOT handing it over.
- blandcoffee 2y ago
  Interesting - I genuinely want to understand your perspective here. Are you saying following the laws to protect sensitive information is not worth it in this case, because it has been authorized by the party of the day?
  - ty6853 2y ago
    That sounds like a 'why did you beat your wife' kind of question. No comment here has established law was broken, nor did you even cite any specific crime. Genuinely have no idea what red herring you are going on here.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      Over the last decade or so I've ceased to believe that laws even really exist or that anything matters.
- locopati 2y ago
  The Constitution provides for checks&balances. This violates the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). It is unconstitutional like so many of these executive orders that violate the 1st and 4th Amendments. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause
  - ty6853 2y ago
    I find it hard to believe every employee accessing the system without a congressional appointment is violating the constitution. Perhaps that is the case but I haven't heard a peep from constitutional watchdogs until now. Can you explain why it's suddenly unconstitutional when the US digital service employees access it?

ranger_danger 2y ago

> Are there no checks and balances in place? All it takes for bad people to win, is for good people to do nothing.

kcplate 2y ago
> is for good people to do nothing Or for good people to run shitty candidates that can’t win the election
- ty6853 2y ago
  A big purpose of primaries is a sanity check for election suitability. Unfortunately whatever elites shit-canned Biden forgot that they need primaries almost as much as the people do.

blendo 2y ago

It appears there are no checks and balances in place. Congress could impeach, or the Supreme Court could enjoin (is that the word?), but I see no prospect of either happening soon.

b0sk 2y ago
Remember that they are all controlled by one party, so everyone is willing to look the other way (and cynically, probably cheerleading it)
nicce 2y ago
Didn’t Trump just remove those checks? Or maybe this is something else: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/21/politics/trump-temporary-security-clearances/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/21/politics/trump-temporary-...
scarab92 2y ago
It would help if people could outline exactly what they are concerned about. As far as I can tell, nothing that that Musk et al is doing is unusual when an organisation changes hands. This is normal for a change of government or a corporate aquisition. Perhaps there should be certain, limited, aspects of executive decision making that require congressional oversight, but because left weren't decrying the lack of checks and balances previously, they now come across as sore losers, worse, dishonest sore losers who are cloaking their pettiness as concern. Secondly, the left lost the public support so badly that the republicans control congress now, so even if such oversight existed, it would also be controlled by the republican party.
- quantified 2y ago
  Huh? This isn't a corporation, nothing about corporate change of control applies. Political, not civil, servants taking over these systems without any oversight is truly brazen. Sounds like you're saying that since there wasn't a prior act of Congress declaring this illegal, it's just whining. Please clarify. You're right that oversight would be influenced by the party in power. Generally, the inspectors general would be relatively independent but guess what, they all got sacked just a few days ago. And Republican congresspeople behave as if they represent the president, not their constituents. The system functioned with some level of decorum before, but this looks like war.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    The actions that are being taken by Trump, Musk and co is normal in both governmental and corporate organisations when a change of control occurs. Oversight in these systems tends to be illusory, because for the executive branch to function it fundamnetally needs to have the authority to make the decisions that are currently being made. The Democrats have, broadly speaking, not cared much for oversight when they were in power, so suddenly caring about it now that republicans are in power comes across as, and probably is, just them being sore losers.
    - jauntywundrkind 2y ago

ty6853 2y ago

This system is squarely in the hands of the executive. The elected executive handed access to DOGE, as he advertised in his campaign. This is so squarely and fairly a democratic action it defies logic this is even worth taking note of. This is what the people, who the government is beholden to, explicitly asked for. Tyranny would be NOT handing it over.

blandcoffee 2y ago
Interesting - I genuinely want to understand your perspective here. Are you saying following the laws to protect sensitive information is not worth it in this case, because it has been authorized by the party of the day?
- ty6853 2y ago
  That sounds like a 'why did you beat your wife' kind of question. No comment here has established law was broken, nor did you even cite any specific crime. Genuinely have no idea what red herring you are going on here.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    Over the last decade or so I've ceased to believe that laws even really exist or that anything matters.
locopati 2y ago
The Constitution provides for checks&balances. This violates the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). It is unconstitutional like so many of these executive orders that violate the 1st and 4th Amendments. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause
- ty6853 2y ago
  I find it hard to believe every employee accessing the system without a congressional appointment is violating the constitution. Perhaps that is the case but I haven't heard a peep from constitutional watchdogs until now. Can you explain why it's suddenly unconstitutional when the US digital service employees access it?