3 ms·

JFK wrote a book called “Profiles in Courage” - no courageous people are around. The “coup” happened a long time ago. The US has demonstrated that there’s no r

JFK wrote a book called “Profiles in Courage” - no courageous people are around. The “coup” happened a long time ago. The US has demonstrated that there’s no rule of law at the federal level for some time now. Once the Chief Justice leaned back and tolerated the open sale of the court, that was basically it. We don’t have the same system of governance anymore… we’re like Italy 1936 or Argentina in 1948 now. We’ll invade Greenland instead of Ethiopia, and skip the funny hats. The question is do we continue on this trajectory or is there a real coup with tanks on DC streets at some point.

rocky_raccoon 2y ago
> skip the funny hats. I don't know about that part... those red ball caps are pretty goofy looking.
- Integrape 2y ago
  The mark of the beast
davidw 2y ago
This piece sums it up pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federal-government.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uk4.tJWn.A8s1V_15NXBV https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federa... The world as we knew it is gone and we're not going back.
rayiner 2y ago
I’m pretty sure the coup happened in the 1930s when the government created the modern system of unaccountable executive agencies and a Supreme Court, under duress, approved it.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Yeah it’s hard to reconcile a permanent layer of unelected officials, that can’t be sacked by either the President or Congress, with many parts of the constitution. And I’ve never seen a clear explanation of how that change was constitutionally justifiable.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    Congress has the power to impeach any federal official.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Via what means…? Most don’t even have sufficient clearances to know the names of random middle managers in many many offices in the CIA/NSA, let alone do anything to them.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    They can be fired, there’s a variety of processes to do so. The obsession with firing people is this weird narrative the right wingers are always obsessed with. The cognitive dissonance between these high and mighty principles and what our principled republican colleagues have and will do is beyond ridiculous. Functional government is the goal of any mature stakeholder. We have 100+ years of spoils system that aptly demonstrates why that methodology doesn’t make sense in a modern society.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Viable processes don’t suddenly pop into existence just because someone says so…? Most of Congress can’t acquire sufficient clearances to even learn the names of random middle managers in many offices in the IC, let alone to do anything about them.
      - Spooky23 2y ago
        They can defund the whole office, subdivision, or function. Life isn’t an episode of the apprentice… nobody in congress sees their oversight role as firing random post office clerks. That’s idiocy. Congress controls the law and the purse. Conservatives have been wielding this power for years - that’s why single moms are routinely nabbed in audits for earned income fraud, while rich people get away with donating millions to phoney foundations that they control for years. (Congress limits funding for enforcement) The executive has broad authority to take personnel actions while adhering to the law.
- oramit 2y ago
  Why this amorphous "the government" wording? The people elected Congress and Presidents, who did this over decades with popular support. Executive agencies are not unaccountable. They have specific charters and there is a huge volume of rules they have to follow. eg:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act). Congress writes their budgets every year and the heads of those agencies are reviewed at congressional and presidential levels.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > unaccountable Accountability means democratic accountability. The APA is not meaningful democratic accountability--it just means that lawyers like me end up running the country.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Spooky23 2y ago
  For nearly a hundred years, the people have voted for those reforms. That’s called governance and democracy. Reactionary people have always been upset about any change. This using an unaccountable fall guy to break the law at will, so that congress can avoid accountability is gross. Folks with your opinion like to wax on about constitutional principles, blah blah blah, as we stand by and watch the shitshow that is happening right now.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Ignoring the constitution isn't a "reform" it's lawlessness. There's no other developed country in the world where the government's actual structure is so divorced from its written constitution. People voted for the administrative state in the 1930s, and they've been voting to cut back on it since 1980. Since then, the only President who won elections without promising to shrink government were Obama (in response to the disaster of Iraq and the Great Recession) and Biden (in response to COVID).
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      The constitution doesn’t say there cannot be a civil service or whatever you are mad about. Congress is empowered to enact laws. I don’t remember an article in the constitution that allows a rich crony to act in contempt of the laws established by congress as an officer of the government without appointment. But I guess our dedication to solemn constitutional principles varies.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        The Constitution makes clear that all executive power is invested in the president. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-ii?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADJbFsAgKJZQ1UI65OOuCDPxI5X24 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art.... It’s literally the first sentence of Article II. So you can have a civil service (and the framers assumed there would be one) but Congress can’t insulate the civil service from the president’s direct supervision. That’s obviously true—because the presidential election is the only way people have to politically influence the internal operation of the executive branch itself.

rocky_raccoon 2y ago

> skip the funny hats. I don't know about that part... those red ball caps are pretty goofy looking.

Integrape 2y ago
The mark of the beast

davidw 2y ago

This piece sums it up pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federal-government.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uk4.tJWn.A8s1V_15NXBV https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federa... The world as we knew it is gone and we're not going back.

rayiner 2y ago

I’m pretty sure the coup happened in the 1930s when the government created the modern system of unaccountable executive agencies and a Supreme Court, under duress, approved it.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
Yeah it’s hard to reconcile a permanent layer of unelected officials, that can’t be sacked by either the President or Congress, with many parts of the constitution. And I’ve never seen a clear explanation of how that change was constitutionally justifiable.
- daveguy 2y ago
  Congress has the power to impeach any federal official.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Via what means…? Most don’t even have sufficient clearances to know the names of random middle managers in many many offices in the CIA/NSA, let alone do anything to them.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  They can be fired, there’s a variety of processes to do so. The obsession with firing people is this weird narrative the right wingers are always obsessed with. The cognitive dissonance between these high and mighty principles and what our principled republican colleagues have and will do is beyond ridiculous. Functional government is the goal of any mature stakeholder. We have 100+ years of spoils system that aptly demonstrates why that methodology doesn’t make sense in a modern society.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Viable processes don’t suddenly pop into existence just because someone says so…? Most of Congress can’t acquire sufficient clearances to even learn the names of random middle managers in many offices in the IC, let alone to do anything about them.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      They can defund the whole office, subdivision, or function. Life isn’t an episode of the apprentice… nobody in congress sees their oversight role as firing random post office clerks. That’s idiocy. Congress controls the law and the purse. Conservatives have been wielding this power for years - that’s why single moms are routinely nabbed in audits for earned income fraud, while rich people get away with donating millions to phoney foundations that they control for years. (Congress limits funding for enforcement) The executive has broad authority to take personnel actions while adhering to the law.
oramit 2y ago
Why this amorphous "the government" wording? The people elected Congress and Presidents, who did this over decades with popular support. Executive agencies are not unaccountable. They have specific charters and there is a huge volume of rules they have to follow. eg:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act). Congress writes their budgets every year and the heads of those agencies are reviewed at congressional and presidential levels.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > unaccountable Accountability means democratic accountability. The APA is not meaningful democratic accountability--it just means that lawyers like me end up running the country.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 2y ago
For nearly a hundred years, the people have voted for those reforms. That’s called governance and democracy. Reactionary people have always been upset about any change. This using an unaccountable fall guy to break the law at will, so that congress can avoid accountability is gross. Folks with your opinion like to wax on about constitutional principles, blah blah blah, as we stand by and watch the shitshow that is happening right now.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Ignoring the constitution isn't a "reform" it's lawlessness. There's no other developed country in the world where the government's actual structure is so divorced from its written constitution. People voted for the administrative state in the 1930s, and they've been voting to cut back on it since 1980. Since then, the only President who won elections without promising to shrink government were Obama (in response to the disaster of Iraq and the Great Recession) and Biden (in response to COVID).
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    The constitution doesn’t say there cannot be a civil service or whatever you are mad about. Congress is empowered to enact laws. I don’t remember an article in the constitution that allows a rich crony to act in contempt of the laws established by congress as an officer of the government without appointment. But I guess our dedication to solemn constitutional principles varies.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      The Constitution makes clear that all executive power is invested in the president. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-ii?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADJbFsAgKJZQ1UI65OOuCDPxI5X24 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art.... It’s literally the first sentence of Article II. So you can have a civil service (and the framers assumed there would be one) but Congress can’t insulate the civil service from the president’s direct supervision. That’s obviously true—because the presidential election is the only way people have to politically influence the internal operation of the executive branch itself.