refurb

38 ms·

871.
by refurb 2y ago
They said they are going to review DOD. It's been 1 month?
872.
by refurb 2y ago
> They said Congress cannot delegate that amount of its plenary power to the executive. That wasn't the conclusion of the decision that overturned Chevron. You can read the decision here. https://www.supremecourt.gov&#x2
873.
by refurb 2y ago
> That's a non-sequitur. It's not based on the comment I replied to. Musk is making a claim about DOGE - the savings. Comment is saying he's not credible. I'm saying Musk made claims about Tesla (creating a successfu
874.
by refurb 2y ago
As you are well aware Washington DC isn’t big on following “the spirit of the law” and is a big fan on quick workarounds for the bureaucracy that slows things to a crawl. I give credit to Trump and Musk for playing the DC game like professi
875.
by refurb 2y ago
Indeed. The new Trump head of Treasury is just making a statement confirming what already was.
876.
by refurb 2y ago
Because he built a massive electric car company, launched a new global satellite internet service with micro-satellites, and successfully launched reusable heavy rockets? (In before someone replied with the famous Obama quote “you didn’t bu
877.
by refurb 2y ago
No because "independent agency" just mean the agency was established by law, with a specific mandate and regulations that the President can't independently change. It doesn't mean the agency isn't a part of the Exec
878.
by refurb 2y ago
The issue lies in a number of areas: 1. Politicians are watching their favorite pork barreling disappear day by day 2. Since Trump was elected President the waste identified is going to be what Trump thinks is waste 3. The job of the Democr
879.
by refurb 2y ago
DOGE is an agency, it took over the digital services agency that existed before.[1]. Obama had created the original agency, not Congress, so Trump had the ability to change it. "The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly ren
880.
by refurb 2y ago
Sure, but that's true before and after this EO. What I'm talking about is accountability for interpretation of the law. Let's say the head of an agency decides their interpretation of the law is X, but the President thinks
881.
by refurb 2y ago
Executive power is derived from the President. Congress can design an agency, set it's processes and procedures, and give it money to run. But the President is in charge of it within those bounds. The President can't decided DOJ
882.
by refurb 2y ago
> Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress. Partially, as we need to be precise in our language. Congress can design an agency, determine what powers it has, determine agency procedures and
883.
by refurb 2y ago
No, not at all. Who are they accountable to? Nobody? Anyone who knows even US Civics 101 would recoil at such an idea.
884.
by refurb 2y ago
> Saying that a President’s personal interpretation of Congress’ laws or the courts precedence, completely overrides any individual executive employees good faith understanding and responsibility to the Constitution, laws, and judicial r
885.
by refurb 2y ago
https://www.thevibes.com/articles/world/101600/singapore-los... Some are moving HQ, some are just downsizing HQ and expanding offices in Malaysia or Thailand. I agree it’s not a wholesale move out, but the tr
886.
by refurb 2y ago
> the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented I don't know what you mean by "bound"? The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions
887.
by refurb 2y ago
This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be. How do you come to that to conclusion, especially in the context of the EO? This EO doesn't change the Constitution
888.
by refurb 2y ago
On a related note, in the last 1 to 2 years there has already begun a shift in terms of multi-national investment in APAC outside of Singapore. Singapore used to be the obvious location for MNC offices in APAC. Especially since Hong Kong
889.
by refurb 2y ago
When Obama threatened the same, he was given the benefit of the doubt?
890.
by refurb 2y ago
We are no where close to being able to accurately predict protein folding and the activity of the resulting molcules. Protein folding is incredibly complex. Imagine a string of 1,000 beads, each bead being made up of 6 different magnets al
891.
by refurb 2y ago
Maybe we have different definitions of "extreme far right", but I've never seen Andy Ngo say anything that isn't just mainstream conservative. But regardless of his political opinions, has anything he said been false?
892.
by refurb 2y ago
You can actually call for the eradication of certain groups in the US under the 1st amendment. The limit is basically “speech which threatens imminent violence”. So saying “we should kill all group X” is fine. Saying “lets go kill those pe
893.
by refurb 2y ago
> The president doesn't have to spend on fraud but he doesn't get to decide lawful Congressional agencies like CFPB and USAID are "waste" by his own metric, and shut them down unilaterally. Those agencies still exist,
894.
by refurb 2y ago
The actual source was CNN. Which is the focus of this discussion.
895.
by refurb 2y ago
> He wasn’t charged because SCOTUS ruled that acts committed while president were immune from prosecution and because the senate didn’t have the guts to impeach him and by the time he won the presidency he fired those working on the case
896.
by refurb 2y ago
> It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed t
897.
by refurb 2y ago
Singapore is an interesting example of that. There is universal healthcare through compulsory national health insurance (premiums subsidized if needed). However, the insurance only covers a portion. About 10-20% will come from a forced med
898.
by refurb 2y ago
> It is absolutely true. The judiciary has no mechanism to _enforce_ laws. Enforcement belongs to the executive branch. A few issues with that statement. First, law enforcement can defy the President in order to follow the law or court o
899.
by refurb 2y ago
Unless you're paying for it 100% out of pocket, this will never happen. In all socialized systems the government decides what your doctor can do, 100% of the time. Of course from a patient perspective it looks much less restrictive,
900.
by refurb 2y ago
> I don't know about that, but certainly it has exposed a significant weakness in the US democratic structure: it is based on the supposition that everyone will follow the rules (i.e., accepting the results of an election, following

More ›