Re: Exciting New Birth Control Method Call ed “Socialism”

On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 11:17:01 -0400, Noah Sombrero <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 10:57:32 -0400, Noah Sombrero <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 10:37:31 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 8/1/2026 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 8/1/26 10:54 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 8/1/2026 1:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 12:44:34 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/31/2026 5:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:18:26 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the deep state functionaries who are virtually
>>>>>>>>> unfireable wanting to maintain their system of permanent 
>>>>>>>>> employment and control.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Himbo has demonstrated that no such level exists in government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact, in terms of control, the election of himbo twice confirms
>>>>>>>> that.  If they had control, that would not have happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Influence =/= control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Significant influence is lacking then.  Himbo's presidency proves that
>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are hedging now.  Tara might even say fudging.  Now put that
>>>>>> marble back where it was.
>>>>>
>>>>> The right answer is to make all of the executive branch employees 
>>>>> fireable by the person in charge of the executive branch. The congress 
>>>>> won't do that but they should.
>>>> 
>>>> i'm not really sure how firing and rehiring the entire govt every 4 
>>>> years could ever be efficient... these aren't orgs that can be replaced 
>>>> by competition dud. they run integral systems within society that we 
>>>> actually do depend on
>>>> 
>>>> besides... this is not really really the point of electing a president. 
>>>> the president does not set policy, the president just leads the org that 
>>>> enacts the policy set by congress. if the bureaucrats are making 
>>>> decision, then policy needs to change, and congress should be doing 
>>>> that, not the president
>>>> 
>>>> ofc, no one guarantee a govt ideals from the 1700s would scale forever. 
>>>> i don't think inducing fed employee churn is a meaningfully resolution 
>>>> to our problems wilson
>>>
>>>The president is not inferior to the congress. He does get to set the 
>>>policies of his administration and that's what the people elected him to 
>>>do. If his policies conflict with what congress wants, the congress can 
>>>pass laws, override his veto, and set the budget to fund what they want 
>>>to happen. And the president has to live within those confines.
>>>
>>>No one wants to fire the entire federal bureaucracy every time a new 
>>>president is elected. But what the president should be able to do is 
>>>replace those he sees as opposing what the people elected him to do.
>>>
>>>That's not the way it is now. People in the executive branch bureaus 
>>>literally cannot be fired if they actively oppose the president's 
>>>policies and try to roadblock them. That's the current law.
>>
>>That's odd.  It seems himbo did exactly that, continues to do exactly
>>that.  
>>
>>But:   fired if they actively oppose the president's policies and try
>>to roadblock them.
>>
>>Policies are not laws.  I would say, that Fed employees should stay
>>within the laws, and if it should be their job to decide a certain
>>thing, they should not be punished for doing that.
>
>In other words, why have an employee whose job it is to decide issues
>the way the pres wants?  

Who is he trying to fool anyway?  Not us surely.

>>Of course it gets really nasty if the pres then comes back and
>>attempts to scrounge up some excuse to prosecute his critics.
>>Investigations are supposed to be based on reasonable suspicions,
>>rather than a search for a suspicion.
>>
>>>That's anti-democratic. Because those people are hardly answerable to 
>>>anyone, actually. Their jobs are protected. It's very difficult for them 
>>>to be fired individually. They are practically beyond the control of the 
>>>elected government, unless the entire bureau is ended.
>>
>>I don't see how you can say that in light of recent pres actions.
>>
>>>That permanent administrative apparatus isn't coequal to or above the 
>>>president. It wasn't supposed to be outside of his purview. The congress 
>>>gets to approve executive branch cabinet level positions. Those cabinet 
>>>officers then get to run the bureaus that congress gave them 
>>>responsibility for. The president can later fire any of the cabinet 
>>>officers at any time without approval by congress. It's set up that way 
>>>because, while they need to be approved by congress, they work for him.
>>
>>Didn't you unsay yourself here?  Sure, himbo has been firing at will
>>and hiring his sycophants.  That is not enough for you?
>>
>>>Those administrative bureaus were deliberately put inside the executive 
>>>branch under the cabinet officers instead of being under the direct 
>>>control of congress. They literally work under the president and that's 
>>>the way the congress set them up.
>>>
>>>That specific organizational structure was created for a reason. Those 
>>>orgs need to be directed and managed and the congress didn't want that 
>>>responsibility. They knew then and they know now they can't do that job 
>>>because they can hardly effectively manage themselves.
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away