Comment by sschueller
4 months ago
DOGE is not a legal entity that has any authority to do what it is trying to do.
The cause may have merits but the method we should all agree is illegal and unconstitutional.
You may not like it but congress needs to make these decisions.
And, by definition, DOGE is a massive conflict of interest for Elon.
You don’t put someone who stands to make billions from reduced regulations on his personal companies in charge of firing said regulators. This is “how to avoid corruption 101.”
Even if you love doge, there is zero chance Elon exclusively makes decisions that are completely impartial. It’s practically impossible when he can strike fear in any random federal employee, and only hires extremely loyal people. Anyone in that position has so much power.
As a result, you have to hire people for this position who have no conflicts of interest, and who have a strong track record of thoughtful, data-driven decision making, who invite disagreement, and who try to understand problems before pressing the delete button.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that Elon is a good fit for this position without divesting from his personal interests.
>> DOGE is not a legal entity that has any authority to do what it is trying to do
100% false.
DOGE is a legal entity that has authority to do what it is trying to do.
Specifically, DOGE is the Department of Government Efficiency, which is a legal entity created by your President inside the USDS. The USDS is a government agency created by President Obama as the "United States Digital Service" and renamed by President Trump as the "United States DOGE Service".
It's authorized. Let's get on with it.
How can you have a functional democracy where the person who was elected to lead the executive branch and who also campaigned on increasing efficiency is not allowed to do that? Especially after the judicial branch has OKed it.
Counterpoint - how can you have a functional democracy when citizens(?) have such a poor understanding of our system of government?
And by "the judicial branch has OK'd it", are you referring to the President's immunity from prosecution for official acts?
That is fundamentally different than "presidents have the power to do whatever they want".
There was a lawsuit to stop the firings. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/federal-judge-wont-stop-tru...
4 replies →
He is allowed to increase efficiency by the means available within the law (including, where a change in law would make things more efficient, presenting a proposal for such a change to Congress.)
And the judicial branch hasn't okayed what he has tried to do, which is why there have been multiple orders issued by multiple courts against his stopping of payments.
"How can you have a functional democracy without a king" is what you seem to be asking. Do you see the problem?
Did you miss the election?
1 reply →
When did he promise that during the campaign trail?
I keep hearing all these things about how the voters voted for this and that but uh when did the candidate promise those items?
> he judicial branch has OKed it.
This is not true as evidenced by your own link below.
Trump has zero intrest in stopping waste or corruption.
He is firmly pro corruption
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fcpa-anti-bribery-law-exe...