Re: Exciting New Birth Control Method Called “S ocialism”

On 8/2/2026 10:57 AM, Noah Sombrero 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.
> 
> 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.

Trump has not been firing at will because he is prevented from doing so 
by law, unfortunately.