“Trump will deconstruct the administrative state and part of that is crushing the Deep State” Steve Bannon (nothing inflammatory, no name-calling)

[GLASNOST]

Oh my god you hate roads and the fire department Taking down a corrupt doj ,epa ,FBI,CIA , doe......no one will fill the potholes and the local fire department will be disbanded

Glass brother You're wasting your breath with these retards ....all they do is regurgitate the same shit

I know but I didn't post this thread for their benfit. The outcome of that would be just as you said.

How many decades have ya heard the same exact horseshit?

Well, since 1959 but I wasn't born until 1947 so I'm a late starter.

 

[forkup]

I know but I didn't post this thread for their benfit. The outcome of that would be just as you said.

Well, since 1959 but I wasn't born until 1947 so I'm a late starter.

I'm still waiting for you to actually engage my counter argument. Are you busy, or simply not interested in challenging your preconceptions? Since "you didn't write it for my benefit?"

 

[GLASNOST]

My question was how do you or anyone propose to run A COUNTRY (not a city, county, or even State.) without some form of administrative state?

You may be suffering from tunnel vision or selective comprehension. Bannon said "the administrative state" not an administrative state.

 

[forkup]

You may be suffering from tunnel vision or selective comprehension. Bannon said "the administrative state" not an administrative state.

What's more that's not really what they are proposing. They're proposing to replace that "administrative state" with political appointees. In other words replacing civil servants who do their job following the laws and regulations regardless of political affiliation, with people who own their jobs to political affiliation.

Didn't miss it at all. What I'm missing is a coherent reasoning from you why this is preferable? Project 2025 | Presidential Transition Project

 

[GLASNOST]

Steve Bannon is a traitor,

OK.

 

[GLASNOST]

They conflate "the deep state (administrative state)"

"The Deep State" and the "Administrative State" may not be synonymous in so much as they share identical responsibilities.

 

[forkup]

"The Deep State" and the "Administrative State" may not be synonymous in so much as they share identical responsibilities.

Can you explain the difference so I have a clear explanation as to how you define them?

 

[GLASNOST]

What I'm missing is a coherent reasoning from you

That's a pity.

 

[GLASNOST]

Can you explain the difference so I have a clear explanation as to how you define them?

It isn't necessary to explain the differences as long as you understand that they exist.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... Most people on the right are completely fine people I have no doubt. The problem is that they have entrenched themselves to such an extent that nothing penetrates into their bubble.

You are insinuating by defualt that there is only one bubble.

 

[forkup]

It isn't necessary to explain the differences as long as you understand that they exist.

That's convenient. So you understand that something exists and that's sufficient when talking about it to another person?

I'm thinking about a color, I won't tell you which one. So now let's discuss how well it goes with turquoise.

That's simply not how a honest conversation works. It is however how intellectual dishonesty works.

 

[GLASNOST]

I was in the fridge gathering a small plate of leftover chinks...and a miller ...breakfast of champions baby
I really didn't expect anything intelligent or insightful out of ya

Your teachers have failed you
Thiers no alternative but muh xspurts in the federal bureaucracy

You're to stupid and indoctrinated

Worth considering.

 

[GLASNOST]

I'm still waiting for you to actually engage my counter argument. .....

I don't believe that.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Hell keep running in circles

First calling me stupid and indoctrinated is NOT an argument. Dodging my question by... well I don't know what the second paragraph is supposed to mean, but ...that. Isn't one either.

I've allowed you to set the parameters of the argument by letting you pick a specific governmental agency you've got a problem with. Thereby, and don't think I didn't notice, allowing you to dodge the very specific federal government functions I gave as an example. And answered your question in a civil matter. You then proceed to pose the red herring (change the argument) from asking me to explain the function of the agency, to defend it's effectiveness. Again dodging my answer. When I then call you on this and bring the conversation back to the function of the agency, you resort to name-calling, still not really giving a rebuttal.

Yankee, I can't say I'm disappointed. Since I've long since given up on the notion of actually having a honest conversation with anyone on the right on this board.
But I do want you to know, that your evasions don't fool me for a second.

Jesus Christ man

Your teachers and parents have completely failed you ...and you don't even realize it
Pretty sad kid

 

[GLASNOST]

It isn't necessary to explain the differences as long as you understand that they exist.

That's convenient.

No, it isn't. I would prefer having indisputable facts laid out on the table, just like you would, but they are not always available. I am an agnostic. I don’t need to understand how gravity works but I do know that “what goes up must come down”.

So you understand that something exists and that's sufficient when talking about it to another person?

Sufficent for who?

I'm thinking about a color, I won't tell you which one. So now let's discuss how well it goes with turquoise.

The fact that you consider your above contribution an analogy is the very reason I didn't submit this thread for "people like you".

That's simply not how a honest conversation works.

Interesting.

It is however how intellectual dishonesty works.

Turquoise smoke screening would be how intellectual honesty works, huh?

 

[forkup]

It isn't necessary to explain the differences as long as you understand that they exist.

"The Deep State" and the "Administrative State" may not be synonymous in so much as they share identical responsibilities.

This is your claim

It isn't necessary to explain the differences as long as you understand that they exist.

This is what you said when I tried to get you to explain the difference

No, it isn't. I would prefer having indisputable facts laid out on the table, just like you would, but they are not always available. I am an agnostic. I don’t need to understand how gravity works but I do know that “what goes up must come down”.

If you say there's a difference between the 2. That means you should be able to explain it.

Without a clear understanding of what you're talking about. A conversation becomes impossible.

The fact that you consider your above contribution

I'm not above anything. What I refuse to do is let people avoid answering questions. In my experience being vague about the meaning of terms, so you can apply or refuse to apply those terms at need. Is one of the ways people get out of answering.

That's why I want to pin you down on what you mean with "administrative state" and/or "deep state". So that tactic becomes unavailable.

Turquoise smoke screening would be how intellectual honesty works, huh?

Using an analogy to make a point is a perfectly honest debating strategy, as long as the analogy works.

In this case, it illustrates the need for a clear definition about what you're talking, in order to have an honest conversation.

 

[Curried Goats]

Their general concerns and frustrations are not at all without merit, and I personally agree with many of them. The problem is that the rank & file have been made to feel so desperate that they're willing to throw in with people who have clearly become ideologically radicalized. Bannon is a perfect example.

Identifying a problem and wanting to fix it is one thing. The approach you choose to take to fix it is something else entirely.

I don't think the rank & file has an accurate grasp of the national carnage it's asking for. You can't govern via rage, paranoia and manipulation. Not successfully, anyway. Look to world history. It doesn't end well.

What problem exactly have these Bingos identified that you agree with?

 

[1srelluc]

We need a federal hiring freeze along with a following RIF in most federal agencies.....You could eliminate most of the middle management (GS 13/14) positions and not miss a beat.

When my wife went to work for FEMA she had one supervisor that she reported to who ran the department she was in.

When she retired there were three between her and the one she would have reported to when hired.

That's three extra GS-13/14 employees that were totally unnecessary given that there were actually fewer employees in her department when she retired than when she was hired.

Three of those last years was remote work.

 

[forkup]

We need a federal hiring freeze along with a following RIF in most federal agencies.....You could eliminate most of the middle management (GS 13/14) positions and not miss a beat.

When my wife went to work for FEMA she had one supervisor that she reported to who ran the department she was in.

When she retired there were three between her and the one she would have reported to when hired.

That's three extra GS-13/14 employees that were totally unnecessary given that there were actually fewer employees in her department when she retired than when she was hired.

Three of those last years was remote work.

So if I understand you correctly, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Your wife worked at FEMA were she retired.
FEMA has fewer employees as they had when she started working there. But a lot of those were in middle management, creating unnecessary jobs?

Your solution is a freezing hire and the firing of superfluous jobs.

I think I have this right?

You aren't suggesting getting rid of FEMA entirely I presume?

If you don't, how do you believe the determination of who stays and goes has to be made. And who brings down the axe.

Mind you, if you can extrapolate your anecdotal experience to the entire agency, I'm not against it. I'm just curious if you have an idea as how to go about it. And if you're hiring freeze wouldn't prevent the agency from doing it's job ( a hiring freeze doesn't just mean middle management, it means people on the ground who quit won't be replaced.)

 

[gipper]

(1) I agree with Bannnon. (2) The Deep State is a scourge. (3) This is a deeply troubling time we are living in (4) and it needs to be corrected.

https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensore...l&utm_source=iterable&utm_content=stevebannon

Yeah he’s right about the DS, but absolutely wrong about Don doing anything to curtail it.