"Flooding the Zone"

[berg80]

I just found it ironic.
He would be bitching about the existence of those alphabet agencies more than who runs them.

Maybe not. There have been a few changes to the country since he was around.

 

[berg80]

But I'll just say that Trump is appointing this:

"This" being an unqualified, credibly accused sexual abuser who was forced out of his positions in two orgs a fraction of the size of the Pentagon for misuse of funds.

Even with added capacity, the reality of party loyalty remains. In a Senate controlled by the president's party, the majority faces immense pressure to confirm nominees to maintain unity and avoid alienating the president's base. This dynamic reduces the Senate's role from a check on executive power to an enabler of it—an example of what scholars call "separation of parties, not powers." Senators may privately doubt the fitness of nominees but still approve them to avoid the political cost of resistance. In this environment, institutional responsibility is sacrificed to party loyalty, diminishing the Senate's ability to ensure competent governance.

 

[Darkwind]

Open the links

That is not how plagarism works.

You cite your sources and also, give attribution.

A checker of the opening post show it is only 38% original.

 

[BackAgain]

The High Price Of Kakistocracy

As we inch toward the holidays and the news slows, I wanted to step back and offer a bit more context on the slew of absurdist Trump nominations. The sheer number of unqualified miscreants that Trump has chosen to cast for his second season is overwhelming to the mind and to the mechanisms in place to screen out the worst and dimmest.

“The volume of controversial nominees will force senators to prioritize their battles, allowing some to advance simply due to limited time and attention,” law professor Alan Z. Rozenshtein writes at Lawfare.

I highly recommend Rozenshtein’s piece. It places Trump’s approach to nominations in a broader historical and political context. Here’s a sampling:

Trump’s nominations represent an unprecedented triple assault on constitutional appointment norms: First, many are unqualified or hostile to their agencies’ missions. Second, rather than making a few controversial picks, Trump has flooded the zone, nominating an entire slate of problematic candidates that burdens the Senate’s capacity for proper vetting. And third, Trump has signaled willingness to circumvent the confirmation process through legally dubious tactics such as forced Senate adjournment. Together, these moves threaten to transform the appointments process from a constitutional safeguard into a vehicle for installing loyalists regardless of competence.
Trump Casts The Worst And Dimmest For Season 2

The term "kakistocracy" (rule by the worst) emerged from obscurity during the first Trump administration. The word, which was previously used to describe troubled foreign governments, gained mainstream usage as critics pointed to controversial appointments such as Tom Price at the Department of Health and Human Services and Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency—officials whose qualifications and conduct drew widespread criticism.

With President-elect Donald Trump's imminent return to power, "kakistocracy" is back in public conversation. As the Economist noted by making it “word of the year,” Google searches for the term spiked in November: first after Trump's victory, then after he nominated controversial officials for cabinet positions, including Matt Gaetz for attorney general and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of health and human services, and again when Gaetz withdrew his nomination amid criticism. And Trump's recent nomination of Kash Patel to lead the FBI has only intensified concerns about an impending kakistocracy.
The Constitution of Kakistocracy

I had been thinking about writing a post with that title for a while. Due to the number of outrages already piling up. Once I saw the linked article I decided to go ahead. The corruption involving Musk's Tesla car company being advantaged by ending accident reporting for self driving cars, the rampant crypto conflicts of interest following trump's foray in to the crypto biz, the onslaught of unqualified cabinet nominees, the attempts to intimidate the media and political opponents, being some of the more obvious examples.

It brings back memories of the chaos and corruption of trump 1.0. Cabinet nominees being forced to resign for legal and ethical violations. trump firing IG's who were investigating the admin. The refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas. The broken promise, and lies, about the wall. The obstruction of Mueller's investigation. Mike Flynn and Comey being fired within weeks of the inauguration. The lies about the inauguration itself. Many more incidents trumples have stuffed down their memory holes.

Whether by accident or design it can be disorienting. How do you fully examine the background of unqualified cabinet nominees when there are so many of them? How do you stop the cronyism regarding Musk when there's so much regarding crypto? But it must be done. Now it not the time to falter. Now is the time for vigilance.

Your existence is proof that bloviators will bloviate.

 

[Darkwind]

"This" being an unqualified, credibly accused sexual abuser who was forced out of his positions in two orgs a fraction of the size of the Pentagon for misuse of funds.

Even with added capacity, the reality of party loyalty remains. In a Senate controlled by the president's party, the majority faces immense pressure to confirm nominees to maintain unity and avoid alienating the president's base. This dynamic reduces the Senate's role from a check on executive power to an enabler of it—an example of what scholars call "separation of parties, not powers." Senators may privately doubt the fitness of nominees but still approve them to avoid the political cost of resistance. In this environment, institutional responsibility is sacrificed to party loyalty, diminishing the Senate's ability to ensure competent governance.

Fully qualified and falsely accused sexual abuser.

 

[berg80]

It's has been like this since Escalator Day™. Just a hurricane of lies and hyperbole and juvenile comments and and sedition and "I plead the Fifth" and rotten behavior and insults and crime and everything else.

You can't focus on any of it, because something else takes its place within hours, at most.

The American public is now numb to it, and that's one of the worst possible things that could have happened to this country. What standards we had left are gone. We just don't give a shit any more.

Think in terms of the Access Hollywood tape and how quickly it faded in to the background after the timing of the orchestrated Wikileaks document dump.

 

[TNHarley]

Maybe not. There have been a few changes to the country since he was around.

Yeah no shit. The antithesis for why this country was founded in the first place.

 

[berg80]

Fully qualified

Factually inaccurate.

"falsely accused sexual abuser."

Yet he paid for the woman's silence.

 

[berg80]

Yeah no shit. The antithesis for why this country was founded in the first place.

The principle Jefferson put forth has repeatedly been violated by trump.

Fundamentally, Trump’s second term marks a return to a premodern approach to executive administration, reminiscent of the “spoils system” earlier in American history, before the framers’ focus on good governance was instantiated in law and practice. Early presidents such as Andrew Jackson appointed loyalists and political allies regardless of competence, resulting in inefficiency and corruption. Another notable example is Warren G. Harding's "Ohio Gang," unqualified cronies and corrupt associates who exploited their positions for personal gain.

 

[Foxfyre]

"This" being an unqualified, credibly accused sexual abuser who was forced out of his positions in two orgs a fraction of the size of the Pentagon for misuse of funds.

Even with added capacity, the reality of party loyalty remains. In a Senate controlled by the president's party, the majority faces immense pressure to confirm nominees to maintain unity and avoid alienating the president's base. This dynamic reduces the Senate's role from a check on executive power to an enabler of it—an example of what scholars call "separation of parties, not powers." Senators may privately doubt the fitness of nominees but still approve them to avoid the political cost of resistance. In this environment, institutional responsibility is sacrificed to party loyalty, diminishing the Senate's ability to ensure competent governance.

You really really need better sources.

 

[TNHarley]

The principle Jefferson put forth has repeatedly been violated by trump.

Every other president has violated his principles.
You are sitting there whining about qualifications, when you voted in a fucking dementia ridden corrupt POS, who installed a mentally ill obese man as sec of health.
GTFO with your disingenuous BS.
All you partisan hacks care about is division.

 

[BackAgain]

The principle Jefferson put forth has repeatedly been violated by trump.

Nonsense.

And as much as I admire and appreciate Jefferson, I have to say: he was one in too deep on “democracy” and not nearly up enough on the merits of a “republic.”

Thank God his views on that did not prevail.

 

[berg80]

I guess the OP doesn't believe in attribution for other people's work.

All excerpts are italicized after the original attribution with a link from the article they came from.

So feel free to go fuck yourself.

 

[berg80]

You really really need better sources.

I'll take that with a grain of salt coming from you.

 

[berg80]

Every other president has violated his principles.

Are there other examples of unqualified nominees in other admins? Yes. On anything close to the scale of trump's? No.

These historical parallels highlight a departure from the merit-based norms of modern American governance. While the 20th and early 21st centuries saw a trend toward professionalizing the executive branch, Trump's nominations mark a reversion to governance as a means of rewarding loyalty and advancing personal or ideological agendas. This shift risks immediate harm from unqualified officials in critical roles and normalizes such appointments, setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations to prioritize partisan loyalty over public service.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump’s nominations represent an unprecedented triple assault on constitutional appointment norms: First, many are unqualified or hostile to their agencies’ missions. Second, rather than making a few controversial picks, Trump has flooded the zone, nominating an entire slate of problematic candidates that burdens the Senate’s capacity for proper vetting. And third, Trump has signaled willingness to circumvent the confirmation process through legally dubious tactics such as forced Senate adjournment.

The same is true of Trump: unqualified, unfit, and hostile to the mission of his office.

 

[TNHarley]

Are there other examples of unqualified nominees in other admins? Yes. On anything close to the scale of trump's? No.

I said principles.
You dont care about everything else he said because fo your narrative you are trying to form right now. Doesnt work, you arent smart enough to pull it off.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah bring up thomas jefferson on a subject that involves a govt 40 times the size than what was envisioned. lol

The issue is Trump's unwarranted contempt for sound, responsible governance having nothing to do with its size.

 

[The Duke]

The High Price Of Kakistocracy

As we inch toward the holidays and the news slows, I wanted to step back and offer a bit more context on the slew of absurdist Trump nominations. The sheer number of unqualified miscreants that Trump has chosen to cast for his second season is overwhelming to the mind and to the mechanisms in place to screen out the worst and dimmest.

“The volume of controversial nominees will force senators to prioritize their battles, allowing some to advance simply due to limited time and attention,” law professor Alan Z. Rozenshtein writes at Lawfare.

I highly recommend Rozenshtein’s piece. It places Trump’s approach to nominations in a broader historical and political context. Here’s a sampling:

Trump’s nominations represent an unprecedented triple assault on constitutional appointment norms: First, many are unqualified or hostile to their agencies’ missions. Second, rather than making a few controversial picks, Trump has flooded the zone, nominating an entire slate of problematic candidates that burdens the Senate’s capacity for proper vetting. And third, Trump has signaled willingness to circumvent the confirmation process through legally dubious tactics such as forced Senate adjournment. Together, these moves threaten to transform the appointments process from a constitutional safeguard into a vehicle for installing loyalists regardless of competence.
Trump Casts The Worst And Dimmest For Season 2

The term "kakistocracy" (rule by the worst) emerged from obscurity during the first Trump administration. The word, which was previously used to describe troubled foreign governments, gained mainstream usage as critics pointed to controversial appointments such as Tom Price at the Department of Health and Human Services and Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency—officials whose qualifications and conduct drew widespread criticism.

With President-elect Donald Trump's imminent return to power, "kakistocracy" is back in public conversation. As the Economist noted by making it “word of the year,” Google searches for the term spiked in November: first after Trump's victory, then after he nominated controversial officials for cabinet positions, including Matt Gaetz for attorney general and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of health and human services, and again when Gaetz withdrew his nomination amid criticism. And Trump's recent nomination of Kash Patel to lead the FBI has only intensified concerns about an impending kakistocracy.
The Constitution of Kakistocracy

I had been thinking about writing a post with that title for a while. Due to the number of outrages already piling up. Once I saw the linked article I decided to go ahead. The corruption involving Musk's Tesla car company being advantaged by ending accident reporting for self driving cars, the rampant crypto conflicts of interest following trump's foray in to the crypto biz, the onslaught of unqualified cabinet nominees, the attempts to intimidate the media and political opponents, being some of the more obvious examples.

It brings back memories of the chaos and corruption of trump 1.0. Cabinet nominees being forced to resign for legal and ethical violations. trump firing IG's who were investigating the admin. The refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas. The broken promise, and lies, about the wall. The obstruction of Mueller's investigation. Mike Flynn and Comey being fired within weeks of the inauguration. The lies about the inauguration itself. Many more incidents trumples have stuffed down their memory holes.

Whether by accident or design it can be disorienting. How do you fully examine the background of unqualified cabinet nominees when there are so many of them? How do you stop the cronyism regarding Musk when there's so much regarding crypto? But it must be done. Now it not the time to falter. Now is the time for vigilance.

You need deported to Kekistan.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

The High Price Of Kakistocracy

As we inch toward the holidays and the news slows, I wanted to step back and offer a bit more context on the slew of absurdist Trump nominations. The sheer number of unqualified miscreants that Trump has chosen to cast for his second season is overwhelming to the mind and to the mechanisms in place to screen out the worst and dimmest.

“The volume of controversial nominees will force senators to prioritize their battles, allowing some to advance simply due to limited time and attention,” law professor Alan Z. Rozenshtein writes at Lawfare.

I highly recommend Rozenshtein’s piece. It places Trump’s approach to nominations in a broader historical and political context. Here’s a sampling:

Trump’s nominations represent an unprecedented triple assault on constitutional appointment norms: First, many are unqualified or hostile to their agencies’ missions. Second, rather than making a few controversial picks, Trump has flooded the zone, nominating an entire slate of problematic candidates that burdens the Senate’s capacity for proper vetting. And third, Trump has signaled willingness to circumvent the confirmation process through legally dubious tactics such as forced Senate adjournment. Together, these moves threaten to transform the appointments process from a constitutional safeguard into a vehicle for installing loyalists regardless of competence.
Trump Casts The Worst And Dimmest For Season 2

The term "kakistocracy" (rule by the worst) emerged from obscurity during the first Trump administration. The word, which was previously used to describe troubled foreign governments, gained mainstream usage as critics pointed to controversial appointments such as Tom Price at the Department of Health and Human Services and Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency—officials whose qualifications and conduct drew widespread criticism.

With President-elect Donald Trump's imminent return to power, "kakistocracy" is back in public conversation. As the Economist noted by making it “word of the year,” Google searches for the term spiked in November: first after Trump's victory, then after he nominated controversial officials for cabinet positions, including Matt Gaetz for attorney general and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of health and human services, and again when Gaetz withdrew his nomination amid criticism. And Trump's recent nomination of Kash Patel to lead the FBI has only intensified concerns about an impending kakistocracy.
The Constitution of Kakistocracy

I had been thinking about writing a post with that title for a while. Due to the number of outrages already piling up. Once I saw the linked article I decided to go ahead. The corruption involving Musk's Tesla car company being advantaged by ending accident reporting for self driving cars, the rampant crypto conflicts of interest following trump's foray in to the crypto biz, the onslaught of unqualified cabinet nominees, the attempts to intimidate the media and political opponents, being some of the more obvious examples.

It brings back memories of the chaos and corruption of trump 1.0. Cabinet nominees being forced to resign for legal and ethical violations. trump firing IG's who were investigating the admin. The refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas. The broken promise, and lies, about the wall. The obstruction of Mueller's investigation. Mike Flynn and Comey being fired within weeks of the inauguration. The lies about the inauguration itself. Many more incidents trumples have stuffed down their memory holes.

Whether by accident or design it can be disorienting. How do you fully examine the background of unqualified cabinet nominees when there are so many of them? How do you stop the cronyism regarding Musk when there's so much regarding crypto? But it must be done. Now it not the time to falter. Now is the time for vigilance.

Be honest Berg, for a change. No matter what Trump does your TDS will be inflamed. I imagine you look something like this, only with brown hair, am I right? FKN-A, it's a talent.