America's National Science Foundation workers fired in bulk by Trump now reinstated The US government's National Science Foundation has reinstated most of its cadre of probationary employees after laying them off en masse last month. The decision to bring them back comes in the wake of a California federal court ruling [PDF] that found similar government layoffs – which stemmed from a cost-cutting executive …
It's what he does. After all, the guy bankrupted six casinos over an 18-year period. Even poorly run casinos print money hand over fist. But it also underscores that because the guy can't admit he made any mistakes with those casinos, he's incapable of learning. Not to mention, his credit rating in the US has been in the toilet for decades, which is why, for decades, he's had to get his business loans from foreign banks.
When you have a mountain of debt through corrupt government agencies that is threatening to collapse a nation. What do you do?
If you looked at what is happening in the US you find that many of these organisations are not doing what they are supposed to and in fact just launder money. Don't believe the big media because they are receiving a lot of money laundered this way as are NGOs and fake businesses that provide no useful outcome.
It's tough on ordinary workers who believe they are working for a bona fide organisation but often they're there for camoflage.
> Don't believe the big media because they are receiving a lot of money laundered this way as are NGOs and fake businesses that provide no useful outcome
And yet, the Whitehouse blog At USAID, Waste and Abuse Runs Deep has a list of "waste" - which has managed to find ONE URL to a US govt source[1] to back up their claims - all the rest of their "evidence" is stories in the media[2] - and not even as many stories as they claim (lots of repetitive links to the one report).
So, if we aren't to trust "the big media" and the Whitehouse can't manage to provide links directly to the pages, within their own government's systems, that describe these programs where they were paying NGOs etc, what does that leave us with? AC commentary?
[1] which is, um, the USAID website - which page has been deleted! Guess why!
[2] Daily Mail, Breitbart - well, "media" is a value-free word.
I wanted to know what cities that doge dropped leases on buildings but I am lazy and did not want to look it up on the doge site.
I asked chatgpt for the info.
Bla bla bla … it is not published was the answer.
Not so I told it. Scan the site.
Nope, it said it is not published.
You are able to look at current web sites are you not?
Yes it said, I just can’t access that site.
WTF?
Then it tells me, here are some tools that you can download the site info and if you upload it to me I will catalogue the information for you.
So if it can’t steal the info, it wants me to?
"When you have a mountain of debt through corrupt government agencies that is threatening to collapse a nation. What do you do?"
Can you point to the DOGE website that demostrates all this "corruption" that's been found? So far, it seems to be simply staff firings and cancelling programs they describe as "waste" simply because they don't agree with the aims of those programs. I've not seen any direct accusations of "corruption" nor any actual people accused or charged. Corruption is a very serious offense, especially when in Government office. I have no doubt there is some, but I very much doubt it's anywhere near the scale claimed. I suspect the vast majority of the so-called "corruption" is no more than spending on stuff the current administration simply doesn't agree with and the money was mostly spent legally.
"How do you get a transfer out of this chicken-shit outfit?" - Harry demanded.
"Well, you have to fuck up —"
"Fuck up. That's my problem. All this time I tried to fuck off."
[Footfall, Pournelle & Niven, 1985.]
I suspect these poor probationers having suffered the "fuck up" are seriously considering "fucking off."
I suspect these poor probationers having suffered the "fuck up" are seriously considering "fucking off."
What I find most unsettling about this "fire all probationer" edict, apart from the many row-backs, is that "probationer" may well be a new hire, but that doesn't mean they are fresh faced college kids with no experience. People change jobs at all sorts of times of life and career stages. And, by definition, not only is Trump a "probationer", so are most of his cabinet and the majority of his recent appointments as dept heads etc. Even if we excludet elected officials such as Trump himself, that still leaves a lot of newly appointed people who most definitely ARE probationers.
@John Brown (no body)
""probationer" may well be a new hire, but that doesn't mean they are fresh faced college kids with no experience."
This is very true. I expect it is fire the probationers because they are easier to fire. They are not yet a fully fledged employee who is harder to fire and worse this is government bureaucracy where they have an expectation of a job for life short of some extreme law breaking.
All of this runs into the difficulty of effectively slimming a government down. They can be heavily in debt and deficit and not even passing normal budgets but continuing resolutions just to keep going and yet it is still extremely difficult to try and get government spending and size under control. They would rather the country went to the wall than get spending under control.
Isnt DOGE working under the Executive Order and Executive Office authority of the president? Which means they are saying the President cant get rid of these staff. So who is in charge of this part of the bureaucracy and did they ever figure out who was wrong over what the probationary period should have been?
Those who had been told they had 1 year probation and had passed that, I don think it is right to then say the agency got it wrong and really its 2 years. For that it is those hiring who should be reprimanded. But the President is in office to make cuts to the head count and there needs to be clarity over who belongs to other branches of government so these challenges can be reduced.
They are not following the laws and regulations that cover dismissal. You can't fire these people without cause.
Furthermore, Congress has passed laws that mandate the funding of these agencies at specific levels. In the US, Federal budgets are laws, not suggestions. Supposedly, even the President is supposed to obey the laws. But don't tell that to the Supreme Court; they've recently ruled that the President is beyond the law.
@LazLong
"They are not following the laws and regulations that cover dismissal. You can't fire these people without cause."
Isnt this the argument over probationary? And it is a huge problem to not be able to fire people without cause. There is cause, too much money pumped into a growing bureaucracy while the country is hugely in debt and deficit.
"Furthermore, Congress has passed laws that mandate the funding of these agencies at specific levels."
Thats fine. Isnt that due to the continuing resolutions instead of an actual budget being passed for over a decade? I think I got the timeline right, which means the budget always assumes it needs to be the same as the last + extras. Cutting headcount doesnt change the amount of money going to the agency.
"Supposedly, even the President is supposed to obey the laws. But don't tell that to the Supreme Court; they've recently ruled that the President is beyond the law."
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the role of the Executive Office after the state tried to redefine it to 'get' Trump. And supposedly even the President is supposed to obey the law but it seemed less of an issue when Biden broke it.
@Doctor Syntax
"In employment law "cause" has a meaning: it is something the employee has done to justify firing."
I am fairly sure downsizing is not illegal. Yes there will be employment law to follow I dont disagree. That is why there are emails asking people to demonstrate someone is on the other end and what they have actually achieved as well as cuts to probationary staff.
"Isnt this the argument over probationary? And it is a huge problem to not be able to fire people without cause."
Historically civil servants enjoyed a measure of job security in exchange for mediocre financial compensation. That bargain is being thrown out the window. Moreover, it is despicable to tell people they are being let go for poor performance when there is no actual supporting evidence.
@Robert 22
"Historically civil servants enjoyed a measure of job security in exchange for mediocre financial compensation"
Historically yes. Unfortunately it has led to a well paid permanent bureaucracy that thought it could never be fired even for poor or bad performance.
"Moreover, it is despicable to tell people they are being let go for poor performance when there is no actual supporting evidence."
I agree. If they are going for poor performance then there should be evidence. If they are going due to downsizing that should also be accepted. I dont think people should be terminated without following the law, only that it isnt a bad thing that the government is slimming down.
Again it is massively in debt and deficit.
So the President can fire those under the Executive Office but not those under Congress
It's not so much about hiring and firing as failing fully to implement the programs funded by Congress. There's always been some wiggle room as the detail of implementation is within the competence of the executive. Nixon brought it to a head by refusing to implement a bunch of programs mandated by Congress which resulted in the Impoundment Control Act which made more explicit the circumstances in which the executive could simply not spend the money authorised by Congress.
There are those in Trump's circle who argue the Impoundment Control Act is unconstituional, but the last time a case came before the Supreme Court it was upheld.
If Trump could find a way of spending the money and achieving the required outcome without actually employing anyone then of course there wouldn't be much of an argument. But he's actually doing the opposite: firing the staff to prevent the money being spent and that would seem to be at odds with the law as it is currently understood.
Of course, the hope is that once everyone is fired it will be too late for the courts to remedy the situation - assuming the Supremes follow precedent, which is no longer something that is given - as people will be reluctant to come back on probationary contracts from which they can immediately be fired again.
@abend0c4
"If Trump could find a way of spending the money and achieving the required outcome without actually employing anyone then of course there wouldn't be much of an argument."
It would as its the people and the 'workers' who are the argument. And the 'outcomes' is arguable depending on if you mean the intent of the agency or the purpose of the agency. As seen with USAID the agencies intentions and purpose were different and it was squealing over the agency intending to spend how it wanted vs the purpose of the agency.
If this was a private company it would eventually go out of business because the ones in charge of the company cannot cut its workers because its bureaucracy wont let it. The company is in huge debt and losing a lot of money every year yet the problem is not allowed to be fixed because the bureaucracy seems to have the power over the head of the company.
I can understand being government that each branch has its own 'agencies' but the Executive Office comes under the President so surely agencies under the EO should be under Trumps ultimate control?
I can understand being government that each branch has its own 'agencies' but the Executive Office comes under the President so surely agencies under the EO should be under Trumps ultimate control?
I can understand being government that each branch has its own 'agencies' but the Executive Office comes under the President so surely agencies under the EO should be under Trumps ultimate control?
That doesn't mean he should be able to break the law in order to control them.
@Doctor Syntax
"I suppose if you wanted, you could visit the US & appear as an amicus brief in Judge Alsup's court to explain to him why he's wrong. I wouldn't recommend it, though."
The temporary pause seems to be due to claiming the agencies come under a different branch of government from the Executive Office so the EO cannot demand the firings only ask them to do so. No wonder they cannot get the budget under control.
> As seen with USAID the agencies intentions and purpose were different and it was squealing over the agency intending to spend how it wanted vs the purpose of the agency.
The USAID programs were all intended to aid US concerns abroad - by the application of "Soft Power", basically to get people to think that the US are the Good Guys, and to reduce non-military/non-commercial threats, such as incoming disease, and "threats" such as incoming refugees. NOTE: reduce, not stop!
All of the programs that have been complained about and that were shuttered fulfilled that purpose. And for very, very little money. Much (most?) of which money was spent *inside* the US, such as supplies of foodstuffs bought from the US[1].
The big issue here seems to be that too many people don't comprehend "Soft Power" - if it ain't done at gun point it cain't be doin' nuttin'. For Joe Bloggs that shows, to begin with, a total lack of empathy. For a "World Leader" it shows a total lack of understanding, a complete inability to read the history of their own country's policies.
[1] USAID reinstates contracts for Georgia company that helps feed malnourished kids after Elon Musk responds to CNN reporting: was it the starving kids that got that reinstated, or the fact the plant in Georgia was going to lose out?
@that one in the corner
"The USAID programs were all intended to aid US concerns abroad"
Does that include funding the covid labs? Funding to help illegals cross the border? Is it aid to fund trans stuff around the world or media in the west?
So it worked against US interests and not just AID.
"[1] USAID reinstates contracts for Georgia company that helps feed malnourished kids after Elon Musk responds to CNN reporting: was it the starving kids that got that reinstated, or the fact the plant in Georgia was going to lose out?"
That depends how you want to question it- actual US aid being restarted where it was actual aid. Or if you think it is cynically because the plant is losing out then its a waste of US aid then and shouldnt have been funded.
> Does that include funding the covid labs
You think funding research to stop covid is against the US interests? Or are referring to the conspiracy theory that covid was deliberately created in a lab? Either way, stupid.
> Trans stuff across the world..
You really haven't got the hang of this "empathy", have you? Trans people have a hard time of it (and not just inside the US, although they are trying hard to reach the bottom) and anything to raise their spirits makes them think better of those who helped them.
> That depends how you want to question it.
Yup, you have indeed just repeated my question. Well done. At least rephrasing indicates some comprehension.
Now, consider: if it was restarted because it is "real" aid (which, btw, it is) then why was it shuttered in the first place? Was Trump et al unable to determine that it was "real aid"? Was that so hard to understand at time? Or was it just because Elon was embarrassed when people called him out? Incompetence/illiteracy or back-pedalling? And which do we think those two understands moste? Money? Or angry voters?
@that one in the corner
"You think funding research to stop covid is against the US interests?"
You are confused. They funded the labs that created covid. I am guessing you are one of those true believers of the anti-Trump propaganda that covid didnt come from the lab? While it made good fodder for Bidens election run it is now as certain as it can be that covid came from the lab.
"You really haven't got the hang of this "empathy", have you?"
So you agree it had nothing to do with aid. It was a simple question and you have to retreat to 'empathy' to try and validate misbehaviour of an agency.
"Yup, you have indeed just repeated my question. Well done."
So which is it? Do you think the Georgia company shouldnt have been funded in the first place and support DOGE for stopping it? Or happy the US is restarting funding for actual aid? One way or the other you can say something positive for this administration (I know it upsets you).
"Now, consider: if it was restarted because it is "real" aid (which, btw, it is) then why was it shuttered in the first place?"
Part of a corrupted agency spaffing money against its purpose and so the aid needed stopping to find what was right. When a little bit of good is somewhere in a mountain of bad it is too slow and almost impossible to just dig out the good. The agency made sure of that. Because the agency wanted to spend the money on their desires and mixed it in with their actual spending purpose.
They funded the labs that created covidFull blown conspiracy nutbag alert.
Nope. Fauci/NIH did fund the Wuhan lab. The Wuhan lab happened to be ground zero for the outbreak. The Wuhan lab was being funded to research bat corona viruses, and had published on the effects of modified viruses. It was entirely a coincidence that the Wuhan lab just happened to be proximate to a livestock worker. So there's a bit of a chicken and egg with whether something at the market just so happened to infect a lab worker, or the lab worker was infected at the lab. If the outbreak started in the market, no evidence of a natural reservoir has been produced. So then add a bit of occams razor, and decide which might be more probable, a lab researching the corona viruses, or the wet market. Especially when a covid-like virus had been collected from some caves over a thousand miles away and had infected the collection researchers with a very covid-like virus, some time before the outbreak began. It rather stretches credulity to believe that the wet market imported food from so far away. And that the Wuhan lab had also been criticised for poor biosafety procedures.
And then there's the role of EcoHealth alliance in being both the conduit for research and money flowing to Wuhan, and their role in the cover up. And whether Fauci/NIH had been using EcoHealth to fund gain-of-function research, which Obama had made illegal due to the risks of creating something very much like covid. Which is an investigation that is still ongoing. But also a bit of a waste issue, ie why millions were washed through an NGO instead of funding going directly. Plus the Biden administration banned funding EcoHealth alliance and of course gave a wide ranging pardon to Fauci. One thing politicians like Fauci are good at is covering their asses, so setting up EcoHealth as the scapegoat.
And then there's just good politics. Covid cost a collosal amount of money, and impacted many lives directly or indirectly. If it emerged in the wild, then that needs to be understood to help prevent other outbreaks. But that also applies if it was an experiment in modifying viruses that escaped the lab.
>> "You really haven't got the hang of this "empathy", have you?"
> So you agree it had nothing to do with aid. It was a simple question and you have to retreat to 'empathy' to try and validate misbehaviour of an agency.
Sigh. USAID are (were) meant to be doing more things than whatever your narrow definition of "aid" might be. Basically, everything and anything that benefitted the US interests abroad. And those interests include helping all sorts of people in various sorts of bad situations (with a great big sign reading "this help was brought to you by the USoA", to drive the point home).
The "empathy" thing was that you are refusing to accept that persecution of trans people is - anything bad.
> Part of a corrupted agency spaffing money against its purpose
Notice that you haven't got any actual examples of work they did that wasn't helping US interests abroad - let alone that there was so very, very much of it that it rendered the entire agency corrupt.
>> "You think funding research to stop covid is against the US interests?"
> You are confused. They funded the labs that created covid.
How very carefully selective you were, forgetting to copy the rest of that (very short) paragraph: "Or are referring to the conspiracy theory that covid was deliberately created in a lab? Either way, stupid". Perhaps you got confused when you were copy'n'pasting?
No, "they" did not create covid in a lab.
@that one in the corner
"Sigh. USAID are (were) meant to be doing more things than whatever your narrow definition of "aid" might be. Basically, everything and anything that benefitted the US interests abroad."
And that was the problem, USAID was not about aid but also whatever the agency wanted even against US interests. Including funding the covid labs working on creating the pandemic style viruses.
"The "empathy" thing was that you are refusing to accept that persecution of trans people is - anything bad."
The empathy thing was your loss of argument and appealing to emotive claims.
"Notice that you haven't got any actual examples of work they did that wasn't helping US interests abroad"
You seem to have partly forgotten the conversation, let me remind you- "Does that include funding the covid labs? Funding to help illegals cross the border? Is it aid to fund trans stuff around the world or media in the west?"
"How very carefully selective you were, forgetting to copy the rest of that (very short) paragraph"..."No, "they" did not create covid in a lab."
I didnt forget I was trying not to punch down too hard. The time has passed where claiming covid didnt come from the lab could be used against people. The facts came out and it is all but an absolute certainty that it came from a lab and that is due to the actions of the Chinese destroying evidence and blocking the WHO. The virus itself having features worked on in the lab and not seen in nature, and nothing to support the natural development theory. The propaganda that it certainly wasnt from the lab stopped once Biden became president and since then increasing amounts of evidence has shown the cover up.
But lets entertain your fantasy for a quick second. In your exceptionally unlikely hypothetical world that covid didnt come from the lab, these labs worked on that exact pandemic creating viruses doing gain of function research to create the same virus in lethality and speed of spread. And USAID funded it too. So shutting that funding off sounds like a bloody good idea.
"The empathy thing was your loss of argument and appealing to emotive claims."
Empathy is when you go into something like USAid and investigate all the programs to see which are "good" and which are "bad" (for certain values of "good" and "bad" dependent on the current administration.) You DON'T go in and shut the entire system down and wait to see who squeals the loudest and then give them their funding back because by definition you are hurting and possibly killing the very people you claim to want to help by "stopping the corruption". There's a long and well understood phrase for that involving babies and bathwater. The very fact that Trump, Musk and DOGE have done so many U-turns makes it clear they have not heard of that concept.
@John Brown (no body)
"Empathy is when you go into something like USAid and investigate all the programs to see which are "good" and which are "bad""
Except this doesnt work. Good funding is mixed in with the bad funding and Trump has 4 years to deal with not only this one agency but as many as possible. Worse than that as an agency spending the money as it wants it will be unwilling to slim and stop spending on whatever it wants. Hiding behind empathy to shield you from reality will only hurt you more and that is what @that one in the corner was doing.
"You DON'T go in and shut the entire system down and wait to see who squeals the loudest and then give them their funding back"
That is exactly how you do it when you are serious about resolving the problem. When EcoHealth Alliance squeals for more wuhan covid lab funding you say no. When agencies supporting illegals to break into the country you say no. But how long would it take to dig through obfuscation and unwillingness to help to try and find these and more to then cut them? This isnt someone willing to cut their budget this as agencies enjoying funnelling money to their pet projects and not going to willingly give it up.
"There's a long and well understood phrase for that involving babies and bathwater."
Also when about to drive over a cliff you turn the wheel. This isnt happening because the US is in a healthy position. It is happening because parasites are killing the host and the US is massively in debt and deficit. Government programs to support health and age are literally looking at running out of money in a measurement of years. If the money runs out so does all that support for people who need it. Actually people dying and serious unrest as the country didnt turn the wheel but put the foot on the accelerator.
4 years for the first person who seems to be serious about actually doing something about it. Thats all there is and then who knows what comes after. The US is running on continuing resolutions, it is running as if it is in an emergency situation and has been since 2008! Now imagine an emergency pops up, say another pandemic or a war. Under Obama the requirement of the US military to be large enough to fight a war on 2 fronts was removed! Put that in context of a potential WW3.
"The very fact that Trump, Musk and DOGE have done so many U-turns makes it clear they have not heard of that concept."
Or it means they are serious about cutting the waste but keeping the actual purpose going. That they are doing the job they were voted to do.
> ?Do you think the Georgia company shouldnt have been funded in the first place and support DOGE for stopping it? Or happy the US is restarting funding for actual aid
I think the Georgia company had been doing a good job for years, should never have been stopped. By DOGE. That is the point to remember - DOGE was in the wrong to stop their funding.
> Or happy the US is restarting funding for actual aid?
It is good that DOGE was embarrassed into backtracking one at least one thing. However graceless they were doing it.
> One way or the other you can say something positive for this administration (I know it upsets you).
So you think they deserve a great big pat on the back for backtracking? They didn't do anything actually *good* - like make reparations for the losses the firm had in the interim, the damage done further down the line as the news that the life-saving goods were not going to be available and plans drawn up - only to have that effort be wasted.
You have a very, very low bar for something that warrants saying anything positive about DOGE et al - such a great contrast to how much USAID would have to do to garner your approval.
@that one in the corner
"I think the Georgia company had been doing a good job for years, should never have been stopped. By DOGE. That is the point to remember - DOGE was in the wrong to stop their funding."
So DOGE is right to have identified this as one of the good funding projects and restarted funding. Great. So DOGE is making them focus on aid projects then. Great!
"So you think they deserve a great big pat on the back for backtracking?"
No. They should be proud of cutting the non-aid stuff though as that is their job.
> So DOGE is right to have identified this as one of the good funding projects and restarted funding. Great. So DOGE is making them focus on aid projects then. Great!
Yet, no criticism at all for DOGE having misidentified the situation in the first place. Like I said, a very, very low bar for cheering them on.
And how many others have DOGE incorrectly, even by your standards, shut down - and haven't (yet) been embarrassed by public reporting to backtrack on? Any word on how much effort DOGE are putting into performing sufficient analysis before acting?
@that one in the corner
"Yet, no criticism at all for DOGE having misidentified the situation in the first place."
I dont criticise them for it you are right. Not because I want them to cut 'good' funding but because it is so damned impossible to reign in these agencies wildly spending without good reason. When the good is buried in the mud of bad how can you separate them? Many have tried and failed because it takes a long time against obstructionist bureaucracy. It isnt pretty but it works to cut the spending and then see what is actually needed. You might notice similar happens with trying to get household spending under control in extreme spendthrift situations.
"And how many others have DOGE incorrectly, even by your standards, shut down"
I dont know and hopefully they can be identified and restored in a timely fashion. But the idea of slowly scrutinising all spending has been consistently tried and failed and in more than just the US. It is an unsustainable fantasy that analysis and slow walking scrutiny when Trump has 4 years and serious opposition from the swamp is possible. Even Obama couldnt do it and the swamp accepted him.
"When the good is buried in the mud of bad how can you separate them?"
You are making a pretty wild and unfounded assumption that there is more bad than good. The problem is that "bad" is defined by the current administration as "anything we don't like" so it's conceivable that in their terms, there is more "bad" than "good". The problems arise when the administrations ideas of "bad" don't align with yours or the good of the USA.
@John Brown (no body)
"You are making a pretty wild and unfounded assumption that there is more bad than good"
Am I? I am making the pretty good assumption that it wouldnt be so easy to just find and cut the bad. I say this as Obama outlawed funding gain of function research and the wuhan labs took USAID funding (as well as NIH etc). Do you think covid19 was a good thing? The pandemic a good thing? I am fairly sure we can all say no. So why cant government weed out these problems and just tinker at the edges? The US in a huge debt and deficit that is running only on emergency measures to keep going?
So is it best to deal with the problem now or let the whole thing collapse in on itself which will be a serious problem for the country? Better would have been to deal with the problems previously but government does like to take more and spend more by its very nature.
Nice argument re the supporting the COVID pandemic.. Using your own logic, you clearly see a bit of corruption as far more important to root out instantly instead of over a few months of investigation than to worry about people who will actually die because of the root and branch cessation of funding. You heartless bastard.
@John Brown (no body)
"Using your own logic, you clearly see a bit of corruption as far more important to root out instantly instead of over a few months of investigation than to worry about people who will actually die because of the root and branch cessation of funding."
You make a seriously flawed assumption there. What makes you think its a few months investigation into the (this is only one of the vast beast) agency that will resist cutting and have the support of any anti-Trumpers wanting to throw up roadblocks.
Trump has 4 years to do what has failed for the last god knows how long that even Obama was doing it, Biden was doing it. 2 Terms of Obama and 1 of Biden and these were still going on. More seriously Obama banned funding gain of function research and yet multiple agencies funded the covid labs. Trump has 4 years, that is all that is left. We saw what happened in Trumps first term when he tried to do anything, massive resistance based on nothing more than its Trump.
"You heartless bastard."
I noticed you missed an important part of my comment- "The US in a huge debt and deficit that is running only on emergency measures to keep going". If it runs out then the entire country goes under. You heartless bastard.
""No. They should be proud of cutting the non-aid stuff though as that is their job."
And extremely apologetic for shutting down "good" aid and having to backtrack. I've not seen any apologies having to backtrack so many times yet. Maybe one or two mealy mouthed "lessons will be learned" non-apologies, but nothing one can point to as an actual apology. . Why can't you understand that people have been *hurt* by this race to "do something", without thinking it through first? It's exactly the process people make all the time about governments of all colours. Trumps team is no different in that respect, they just turned it up to 11.
@ecofeco
"LOL wut, codedummy?"
I would pause on that dummy comment and start with which bit has you confused?
"Put down the tendies and Moutian Dew."
Wtf is a tendies? I tried google and it says some sort of deep fried meats? Are you feeling ok? Are you taking something you shouldnt, or not taking something you should?
"For Joe Bloggs that shows, to begin with, a total lack of empathy."
Populism doesn't do wokey leftist nonsense like "empathy". It's basically organised greed - "for me not for you" (by whatever measure "you" is - there are plenty of targets to hate on, and more can be easily manufacturered).
> Isnt congress supposed to be a separate arm of government?
Go and have a watch of Legal Eagle. You may not agree with what he is saying, but he does do a good (introductory) job of pointing out what the jobs of the various arms of the US government are supposed to be.
> I am in the UK so my understanding may be a little off.
Resources exist on this funny little thing called The Web.
@that one in the corner
"Go and have a watch of Legal Eagle. You may not agree with what he is saying, but he does do a good (introductory) job of pointing out what the jobs of the various arms of the US government are supposed to be."
Which video is that? He has a lot about various things (seeming to cry about trump) but I stopped scrolling after a while trying to find it. I am serious about looking at it because I guess my understanding of the branches isnt quite right?
"Resources exist on this funny little thing called The Web."
Well done sounding stupid. Even Americans seem to argue over what can and cant be done so your stupid comment doesnt really help over the pond.
> Even Americans seem to argue over what can and cant be done so your stupid comment doesnt really help over the pond.
So, stop reading Reddit and go read, ooh, the US Constitution? It really isn't that long and the language isn't too outdated to understand. Then a couple of junior-level civics courses that discuss the Constitution and give commentary.
If you seriously don't know how to start doing that, then, well done sounding stupid, I guess.
PS I never said Legal Eagle has ONE video about the Constitution - he points it out in context. So try the last few about why what Trump is doing is against the Constitution. If you are not able to watch those and then constructively criticise his analysis then you ain't gonna lurn nuttin nohow.
@that one in the corner
"So, stop reading Reddit"
I dont (thanks for showing your assumptions)
"and go read, ooh, the US Constitution"
That thing they all still interpret in different ways and argue over? Hell some people still try to claim the constitution backed federal interference of abortion! Your smugness is really kicking you in the stupidity.
"Then a couple of junior-level civics courses that discuss the Constitution and give commentary."
Naa I aint gonna take courses in civics of another country. If its too complicated for you to actually explain anything useful then I can only laugh at you. You even claimed to provide an easy video explaining it all clearly, which links to some (seemingly) anti-Trump nutters channel. I get the feeling you have less clue than me.
"PS I never said Legal Eagle has ONE video about the Constitution"
I see you entirely change the entire conversation with your stupidity. I was asking about agencies under the power of the Executive Office (President) and the supposed blurred lines that seem to stop him from firing people in agencies under the Executive office. You jumped up claiming to have easy answers with a video (I quote YOU here)- "Go and have a watch of Legal Eagle. You may not agree with what he is saying, but he does do a good (introductory) job of pointing out what the jobs of the various arms of the US government are supposed to be."
If you are saying I have to watch loads of videos and take courses to understand what isnt even agreed on by politicians then I think you are smoking something a bit too strong.
"If you are not able to watch those and then constructively criticise his analysis then you ain't gonna lurn nuttin nohow."
I may try a few videos if I get bored but as you have failed to offer any clarity in your replies and provide nothing of value to the discussion I think we may have to just give up this conversation as a dud.
@ecofeco
"The U.S. president does not have unilateral power. Never did."
Its nice to read such a sensible comment from someone I usually disagree with (genuinely). The number of times idiots post about Trump having absolute power is ridiculous.
It does seem that some of the agencies in question are under another branch of government which would explain why Trump cannot necessarily fire them but surely anything under the Executive Office he can.
So hopefully won't be returning to the chaos as WFH is halted.
> Trump’s in-office mandate has been coupled with a push to slash government real estate, setting up a dilemma of too little space for too many people. Even before Trump took office in January, the federal government was downsizing office space due in part to the shift toward telework during the pandemic.
> Trump and Elon Musk, de facto chief of the Department of Government Efficiency, have both threatened to fire workers who do not come back to the office
The work of a Stable Genius(tm) in action.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
