← Back to context

Comment by ganoushoreilly

2 days ago

and they immediately course corrected as they should

let me ask you a question. Richard Nixon had a special team under his direct control, they're popularly known as the white house plumbers. He asked this team to engage in activities not directly authorized by congress including various wiretaps and break-ins. Eventually these activities were discovered, it became a scandal and ended his Presidency.

Do you think Nixon did something wrong by creating this team?

If not, then we have an answer for why most people see this whole thing differently from you — most people see the Nixon presidency as clear overreach and abuse of power.

If so, what is the significant difference between Nixon's plumbers and the DOGE team, in your view?

  • Were the "white house plumbers" operating in the clear? On a defined task that was campaigned on? Working with legal as well as existing employees within each organization (yes I get they were simply stealing info)?

    This was campaigned on, The election was won. In this instance the outcome is what the majority elected. You don't have to like it, some may change their mind, but this was made clear as a goal from day 1.

    I've also not been cagey in my support. I fully support what is going on. If you see overreach follow the processes in place and litigate. That's how the country works. There's two distinct issues people have here, the "WHO" and the "WHAT" no one questions the "WHY", because no one can stand here and say we don't need to have cuts across the board. Ignoring the "WHO", the "WHAT" so far has been pretty clear. It's things that socially are supported by one party and not the other. This is the outcome of an election and it's going to keep going until someone proves they are outside of their authorities and the courts agree.

    It sucks to have a narrative perspective for years and then see everything supported under that narrative cut back. I get the emotions, but ultimately none of that matters if we can't afford to keep the proverbial lights on.

  • Nixon had a 25% approval after he left office. I think there's a baseline of about 20-30% of people who are pro-authoritarian, and they don't really want to admit it yet, but they're fine with their team doing whatever they want, as long as they get their way.

    • Interestingly I feel the same way about the left, where things like pronouns were forced onto people, taxpayers were forced to pay off others student loans, the first and second amendments regularly attacked and if you spoke out against any of this it could lead to you losing your job.

      You can’t with a straight face call the party of small government pro authoritarian. Unless you’re purposely skewing reality.

      2 replies →

  • Trump is not directing "wiretaps" or "break-ins" into entities outside the executive branch of the federal government.

By re-hiring him?

  • Sure. They made a decision and stand by it as is their luxury. Yelling at the vacuum of the internet about it may score emotional points but it won't sole the core frustrations people have. The common argument is "yes we need to do it, but do it another way" to which I say, it hasn't been done another way and plenty have had time to do it. Pushing things off and procrastinating in general, combined with a President that is largely supported and on a 2nd term, with no need to pander means you get exactly what was voted for.

    The left had their turn to "fix things" they didn't. The right are trying now, and maybe their methods are wrong, but they're trying. What you're seeing is a power struggle playing out, the people who've been king of the hill are being throw to the side and don't like it.

    • It’s been done another way. We literally have independent agencies within the government that perform this job openly, carefully, with actual transparency, and by teams of experienced personnel.

      It’s not their fucking luxury. It’s our fucking government being dismantled before our eyes by a handful of complete amateurs.

      Mind you, my reply was to your statement that they “course corrected”. They didn’t course correct. They reaffirmed that that they’re happy for the insane and wildly destructive course they’re on to be piloted by open and avowed racists.

      4 replies →

Sorry but this is very clearly moving the goalposts; you asked, got a very seriously problematic example, and then brushed it off with "yeah but..."

Come on man, are we really at the level of just letting that slide and pretending this is a legit operation? That Musk has only the best intentions, as his track record clearly shows right?

I can't believe what I'm seeing, the world has gone fully crazy.

  • Yep it's legitimate and I see no issues with it. The track record of the last admin was crazy were you saying the same things then? The left screamed trust the science in one breath over covid, then said science is fluid in the other when it came to biology. The left went to far and 15 or so years of being propped up and supported has gone by the wayside. I get it, people are upset, but at the end of the day we're here because of the "crazy" spending on "crazy" ideas.