5 ms·
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
by 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 agoInteresting - 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 agoThat 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 agoOver the last decade or so I've ceased to believe that laws even really exist or that anything matters.
- locopati 2y agoThe 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 agoI 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?
- locopati 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- scarab92 2y agoIt’s not fascism to hold the belief that the size of the federal government should be reduced. The left love name calling and I don’t think they realise how immature it makes them look to other voters.
- locopati 2y ago[flagged]
- scarab92 2y ago> fascism, white supremacists I'm sure calling them these names makes sense in your echo chambers, but to the overwhelming majority of people these are inaccurate and inappropriate labels. Calling people things which they are not, does not hurt their reputation, it simply makes your fringe of the political spectrum look immature.