Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Trump Administration

200,000 Layoffs

Plus: Possible quid pro quo between the DOJ and Eric Adams, DEI in the federal government, and more...

Liz Wolfe | 2.14.2025 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Trump/Elon Musk protesters holding signs | Scott Brauer/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
(Scott Brauer/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

The culling within the federal government: Mass layoffs have begun, with most of the some 200,000 probationary employees expected to be terminated in the coming days, mostly from the departments of Energy and Veteran Affairs, but also some from the Small Business Administration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture (specifically the Forest Service), and—ironically—the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which has been overseeing the layoffs.

Probationary employees tend to be workers who have only been in their jobs for a year or under (or two years in some cases). They have the fewest job protections so they tend to be the easiest to fire.

Reason Roundup inline form

The Reason Roundup Newsletter by Liz Wolfe Liz and Reason help you make sense of the day's news every morning.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

"These firings are not about poor performance—there is no evidence these employees were anything but dedicated public servants," said government employee union president Everett Kelley in a statement. "They are about gutting the federal government, silencing workers, and forcing agencies into submission to a radical agenda that prioritizes cronyism over competence." The last two weeks have seen online hysterics, protests outside of federal buildings, and lots of lawsuits filed or threatened by unions representing the employees.

The OPM has apparently dispensed shifting guidance, reportedly telling agencies earlier this week that they should focus on terminating underperforming employees before later in the week shifting to a policy that all or most probationary employees should be dismissed. Some of the agency's own employees were allegedly dismissed via a Microsoft Teams call, per their union, the American Federation of Government Employees. Around 100 people were dismissed at once via that call, with their video and speaking capabilities muted, and were told to leave the building within the hour.

Meanwhile, roughly 77,000 workers have availed themselves of the buyouts offered to them. This is all, of course, part of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), helmed by Elon Musk, which is focused on trimming the federal bureaucracy down to size.

Though I'm supportive of DOGE, there is a certain haphazard nature to these firings that leaves me wondering if they'll result in the desired outcome. For example, some 3,400 workers within the Forest Service were eliminated. But some of those workers were those who specifically work on wildfire management, per Politico, which seems useful, especially when specific states—LOOKING AT YOU, CALIFORNIA—have historically abdicated their responsibility to do so, and/or have vast swaths of federal land within their boundaries (in California, for example, 20 million acres are managed by the Forest Service). (To be fair to pretty boy Gov. Gavin Newsom, though it pains me to do so, California has upped its number of controlled burns in a major way over the last few years, recognizing the necessity of such management techniques.) Still, other laid-off employees were focused on trail improvements at hiking spots and watershed restoration, which seems like something that ought to be supported by nonprofits (or even private companies), not the federal government; in many agencies, it's a mixed bag of seemingly useful functions being cut along with vast amounts of excess.

"It's stripping out, likely, a whole new generation of talent for our government," Max Stier, president of Partnership for Public Service, told The Washington Post. Ha. Look, I'm sure there were some bright and competent government employees who were let go, but there are fundamental incentives issues within the federal government that mean lots of people perform useless jobs at redundant agencies, and perform them for life—on our dime. Well past time to reevaluate this status quo.

A tangent about fires: For those who care about the Forest Service, they interestingly paused doing prescribed burns in California in 2024…which many say is at least partially to blame for the devastating Los Angeles area fires we saw last month. But only the Eaton fire was on federal land, and it's not clear that controlled burns performed by the Forest Service would've actually done much. Still, it's a terrible policy shift that raises questions about the Forest Service's competence. Even the greatest government skeptics can admit that some amount of wildfire-risk mitigation needs to happen if California wants to avoid this cyclical destruction that's becoming routine.


Scenes from New York: "Manhattan's U.S. attorney on Thursday resigned rather than obey an order from a top Justice Department official to drop the corruption case against New York City's mayor, Eric Adams," reports The New York Times. "Then, when Justice Department officials transferred the case to the public integrity section in Washington, which oversees corruption prosecutions, the two men who led that unit also resigned," followed by three more a few hours later. The agency had used a blatantly political justification for its decision to drop the case, with acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove saying Adams needed to be available to cooperate with President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown in New York and claiming the corruption investigation into Adams' conduct was politically motivated.

Danielle Sassoon, the Manhattan U.S. attorney who has now resigned, is a member of the conservative Federalist Society and a former clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (an experience she wrote about here, calling Scalia "a mentor and a mensch"). "I understand my duty as a prosecutor to mean enforcing the law impartially, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment regardless whether its dismissal would be politically advantageous, to the defendant or to those who appointed me," Sassoon wrote in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi dated February 12.

"It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams's opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment," she continued. Sassoon characterized a meeting she attended with Bove and Adams' lawyers as one in which "Adams' attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed."

Sassoon continued: "Mr. Bove admonished a member of [Sassoon's] team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion."


QUICK HITS

  • Is diversity, equity, and inclusion over? We chatted with the illustrious Aaron Sibarium (who gets a ton of great scoops and is worth a Twitter follow) about Donald Trump's efforts to root out wokeness in the federal government.

  • Should we understand Trump's tariffs as symbolic? As foreign policy instruments? As executive whims?
  • Apple and Google are restoring TikTok to their app stores following noises made by the new attorney general signaling that the Chinese-owned social media ban won't be enforced.
  • New Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth "told almost 50 of Ukraine's Western backers on Wednesday that he had joined their meeting 'to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe,'" per the Associated Press. "The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland. We must—and we are—focusing on security of our own borders," he continued, saying that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO, should not expect to get all of its land back from Russia, and that no American troops will be used in Ukraine as part of a peace process or security guarantee. (For good reading on what should happen after the war, read Reason's Matt Welch.)
  • The state of Waymo (autonomous vehicles) in Phoenix, Arizona.
  • J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon dressed down his employees over remote work and laziness:

????
In leaked audio, Jamie Dimon takes his employees, especially the younger ones, to the woodshed over their desire to keep "working" remotely.
???? pic.twitter.com/X7lcwxUlz4

— John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) February 14, 2025

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Why Is Foreign Aid Going To American Farmers?

Liz Wolfe is an associate editor at Reason.

Trump AdministrationGovernment employeesJobsFederal governmentGovernment ReformPoliticsDepartment of JusticeAttorney GeneralNew YorkReason Roundup
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (594)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    Mass layoffs have begun...

    #TrumpEconomy

    1. Minadin   5 months ago

      "These firings are not about poor performance—there is no evidence these employees were anything but dedicated public servants,"

      'Dedicated public servants'. LOL

      1. mamabug   5 months ago

        I know the feds aren't as used to it as we in corporate America, but that is just how layoffs work. You pick the number/dollar amount you want to cut and then choose broad categories of workers who will get you to that. The remaining employees shift job responsibilities and priorities to ensure work needed to deliver business value continues.

        I have also seen and heard about mass layoffs on a zoom (or webex or teams) call. This is just how things are done.

        Veteran of three mass layoffs here (two survived, one didn't) I am not weeping for the poor civil servants living off my dime.

        1. Quicktown Brix   5 months ago

          The remaining employees shift job responsibilities and priorities to ensure work needed to deliver business value continues.

          This is where government and private industry differ.

      2. rbike   5 months ago

        Max Steir is one of those who claimed to have seen, THE PENIS, of one our newer supreme court justices. (No Katanjis).

        Note, I graduated with this useless leech from the same Iowa high school. Sad to see he has become a big DC grifter.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

          Sad, or unsurprising?

    2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   5 months ago

      Chevron cutting 20% of workforce.

      Trump collapse Version 2 coming.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

        Cite?

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   5 months ago

          Find Google News.

          Enter “Chevron” into search box.

          Then press search function.

          1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

            turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
            If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
            turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

          2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

            Lazy fucker.

            1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

              He’s afraid to post links. He’s too dumb to read them and they always backfire because the source material never says what he purports.

          3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

            Poor angry bitch. You lost. You and your fellow travelers, like Soros, are likely done for. And it’s just a matter of of time before your child porn comes to light and you are dealt with.

            Time is running out for you.

        2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

          They've moved the HQ out of CA and to TX, where they have adequate staff already.
          Don't buy individual stocks, but this one is probably a buy; imagine the savings they'll find simply leaving CA

          1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

            But shrike turned 1k to 100k in just a few years. He is a financial wizard.

            1. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

              His acumen is truly staggering.

            2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

              ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS$$$$

              1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

                I’m hearing that in Dr, Evil’s voice.

            3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

              He probably spent the money to produce child porn, which he subsequently sold on the dark web. He’s too stupid for anything else. Unless he spent $100k on scratchers and got lucky.

      2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

        turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
        If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
        turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

      3. Square = Circle   5 months ago

        Trump collapse Version 2 coming.

        We're all going to die again?

        1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

          Isn’t this like the fifth time?

      4. EISTAU Gree-Vance   5 months ago

        ARRGGH! TARIFFS! SHORT THE MARKIT PEANUTS, I KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT!!!! DERP SPITTIN’ TERBACKY!!!!

        Haha. What an idiot.

    3. D-Pizzle   5 months ago

      "You had me at two..."

  2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

    '"These firings are not about poor performance—there is no evidence these employees were anything but dedicated public servants," said government employee union president Everett Kelley in a statement.'

    And by dedicated public servants, Kelley means compliant foot soldiers, union dues payers, and blob party voters.

    1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

      They work hard at being The Resistance. The coequal 4th branch per the ACLU and jeffsarc.

      1. Dillinger   5 months ago

        Weigel was on mslsd this morning with a "The Resistance is Winning!" piece

    2. SIV   5 months ago

      "For example, some 3,400 workers within the Forest Service were eliminated."

      I'd wager very few, if any, of these recent hires have an educational background specifically in forestry. The USFS has been hiring "outside the field" for decades because forestry majors are overwhelmingly white males from rural regions.

      1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

        And libertarian to conservative.

      2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

        "For example, some 3,400 workers within the Forest Service were eliminated."

        What have they accomplished? Seems LA didn't get the attention it needed.

      3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        Not a lot of blue haired non binary lesbian blacks with forestry management degrees?

    3. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

      The sad thing is that maybe there are some of the probationary workers who are good, and are necessary, but because the union has made it so difficult to fire incompetent workers, they're (probationary) are getting the ax instead.

      1. MT-Man   5 months ago

        100% just had this conversation with my coworker, you can't fire the garbage fire workers the way they have it setup.

      2. jimc5499   5 months ago

        When you are talking about layoffs in a Union shop it means that those with the least seniority are let go first. it doesn't matter if the more "senior" person can do the job, they get it because they are "senior".

        1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

          One of the many problems with unions. And another reason that public sector unions should be illegal.

          1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

            100% correct.

      3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        Reason’s Veronica Rugby was interviewed on Andrew Wilkow’s show yesterday. She was really restraining her disdain of Trump when Wilkow was extolling the momentum and initial success of Trump and DOGE.

    4. Trollificus   5 months ago

      And by "no evidence", we mean "we have carefully avoided looking at, or indeed, FOR, any such evidence.

  3. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

    … competence..

    Yes, the government is known for that.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      From the DNC-WEF perspective, maybe.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        Competence and intelligence are determined by their loyalty and adherence to democrat messaging and democrat narratives. At least that’s what I’ve gotten out of every committed leftist I’ve ever encountered.

  4. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    "They are about gutting the federal government, silencing workers, and forcing agencies into submission to a radical agenda that prioritizes cronyism over competence."

    Just say it: CONSTITUTIONAL. CRISIS.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      Consti-what?

      This new-found love for outdated meaningless parchments written by a bunch of white male slave-owners does amuse me.

      1. Yuno Hoo   5 months ago

        "Gotta take the good with the bad!"

    2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

      Sullumboehm beat you to it.

      1. Minadin   5 months ago

        Boellum? (think LoTR)
        Jacoboehm? (pronounced similar to Jacobin)

        1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

          Use them all. Let's not be narrow in our disdain of libertarian-LARPing establishmentarians.

        2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

          I like Boehlum

          1. Ajsloss   5 months ago

            How about turd? After all, turd lies and so do they.

            1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

              Think thats reserved for shrike these days.

              1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

                Yes, Shrike is Turd,

                1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

                  I prefer to refer to him by his title; Kiddie Raper.

                  1. Minadin   5 months ago

                    I thought we were going with Kiddie Diddler. Did that get reversed / superseded when the P-Diddy baby oil thing came out?

        3. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

          Jakeeric.

    3. Minadin   5 months ago

      The level of absolute mind-losing freakout coming from the left about reducing a relatively minor amount of wasteful spending has been absolutely wild.

      On the one hand, they're trying to minimize the graft, like 'oh, 3 million dollars is nothing compared to the entire scope of the federal budget', and on the other, they are acting like it's the apocalypse.

  5. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

    "200,000 Layoffs"

    A good start.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      What would Father Guido Sarducci say?

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

        Dunno, but it would have me laughing.

      2. Anti_collectivist   5 months ago

        "That's nothin to sneeze your nose at!"

  6. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    Meanwhile, roughly 77,000 workers have availed themselves of the buyouts offered to them.

    Vichy civil servants.

    1. Ron   5 months ago

      I wonder how many were going to retire anyway but just got an extra 8 months of pay.I know one person who did along with several others in that office, and I'm sure there are plenty more. based on the size of government probably quite a high percentage.

      1. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

        8 months less damage. And not getting replaced.

        1. TrickyVic (old school)   5 months ago

          ""And not getting replaced.""

          Well maybe not for the next four years.

          1. Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)   5 months ago

            It's something at least.

      2. Ska   5 months ago

        The two IRS agents I know, who both are probationary and thus interviewing elsewhere, said the same - most people accepting the offer are the people who have secure pensions and are on the verge of retirement anyway.

        1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

          Don't care. They're the worst of the lot in my experience.

          1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

            Like that older flight attendant who is long past tired of his/her job, and downright rude.

            1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

              Yes. Exactly.

            2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

              I hate people like that. And everyone around them always makes excuses about how people need to understand what a burnt out miserable cunt they are, even though they’re usually in a customer service oriented position.

  7. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

    'Even the greatest government skeptics can ostensibly admit that some amount of wildfire-risk mitigation needs to happen if California wants to avoid this cyclical destruction that's becoming routine.'

    Here's what has been routine in Southern California for literally thousands of years: seasonal rain and drought, along with episodes of sustained high winds blowing from the interior to the coast. And any ignition causing vast swaths of fiery inferno.

    Now, people can pretend that risk does not exist and build highly flammable, densely packed houses and other structures. Or they can do something different.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      I've mentioned this before, but Alabama and Georgia have extremely aggressive wildfire management plans, because despite being in the southeast, they have a pretty significant risk of it down there.

      Most of this revolves around--guess what?--fuel management. IOW, keeping forest floors clear as much as resources allow, to deny fires of what they need to blow up into conflagrations. This involves "raking the floor" and controlled burns, something that California has been absolutely shit at doing because they're paying off grifters through various social engineering programs and "public works" projects that never get finished.

    2. TrickyVic (old school)   5 months ago

      IDk, I've had liberals tell me forest management is a right wing talking point that doesn't happen.

      Did this open their eyes? I'm skeptical.

      1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

        My father in law retired from the forest service, started under Carter and made it to Obama. Spent every summer fighting fires. The USFS used to fight fires aggressively and manage the forests aggressively but it all changed under Clinton (paying his dues to the greenies). Now the forests are overgrown and diseased and burn hotter and faster then ever. My brother in-law works for Idaho Forest management in the Clearwater region. He says they don't even bother anymore to fight the fires on forest service land. They wait until it gets on state or private land, because that's the only places they can effectively fight it anymore. Also, if you go into an area that has state land by federal land or private land by Forest service, the state and private land ten years later is largely recovered while the federal land still is gutted. I've seen this with my own eyes in Western Montana.

        1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

          And BLM is even worse, with their no grazing for three years after a fire. What happens is weeds, like downy brome, take over and by not grazing, there's nothing to control them. Native grasses and sedges get choked out, and it tends to burn again before the three year mark. The three year mark isn't even based on actual science. It was a throw away line, a guestimate, of how long it should be to allow the grass to recover, but the research shows it is pure bullshit, but anytime BLM attempts to change it the greenies sue to stop the change.

          1. See.More   5 months ago

            And BLM is even worse, with their no grazing for three years after a fire...

            I had to read this three times to get the correct BLM translation to make the sentence make any sense. I wondered how Black Lives Matter fares after no grazing for three years after setting their fires...

            1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

              Yeah, the other BLM, the one that only sets fire to range their supposed to protect by accident.

    3. JFree   5 months ago

      They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into.

      I say - let it burn

      1. TrickyVic (old school)   5 months ago

        Great reference.

    4. Rick James   5 months ago

      Now, people can pretend that risk does not exist and build highly flammable, densely packed houses and other structures. Or they can do something different.

      I hate to say it, but densely packed might have saved them, because to build densely packed housing you'd have to raze all the vegetation which is what catches fire. You notice downtown LA didn't burn down, and good lord did we need it to.

      1. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

        Downtown buildings aren’t made of wood.

        1. Chupacabra   5 months ago

          Downtown is also 20 miles away from the fires.

        2. Rick James   5 months ago

          Yeah, but it wasn't a house that caught on fire, it was vegetation which caught fire either from a homeless meth addict or a PG&E power line (my bet is on the former) which then whipped up into an inferno which swept over the houses which were surrounded by said vegitation. If the Hollywood Hills were completely paved over as "densely packed" usually is, that kind of inferno is highly unlikely.

  8. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

    FOX News cut away from President Trump when he started talking about Mitch McConnell being mentally incapacitated.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      Between that and his demand for plastic straws, Trump has revealed his hatred for turtles.

      1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

        Slow clap.

      2. Quicktown Brix   5 months ago

        Poor Mitch, though. He's just a shell of his former self.

        1. Jefferson Paul   5 months ago

          I love how, regardless of what kind of libertarian people are, we can all rally around our hatred of Mitch McConnel (and Lindsay Graham). I think it might be the only thing the entire commentariat agrees on.

          (I'm sure SPB2 will be around to declare his love for Mitch any minute now, though, to negate my claim. Although I don't even know if SPB2 claims to be a libertarian.)

          1. DesigNate   5 months ago

            The one good thing I can say about Mitch McConnell is that he kept that piece of shit Garland off the SC bench.

            Other than that, fuck him (and shrike will love him the second he starts talking shit about Trump).

            1. Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)   5 months ago

              The only saving grace of Glitch.

          2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

            Hey now! Miss Lindsay is just precious.

  9. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

    Jeffy's hiding the bodies again.

    Did you know about the anti-Trump gunman who tried a mass shooting in Milwaukee on Feb. 12? Of course not! There's a reason the MSM didn't cover this extensively.

    Up until the shooting, Isaiah Stott urged his followers to "stay woke" & he also ranted in support of trans issues.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      Trump must have fired his FBI handler.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      How much USAID money did that guy get?

      1. Rick James   5 months ago

        No one knows because they don't track that kind of thing.

    3. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

      Becoming curious as if the trans cult has mental issues.

      Imagine if we had treated violent schizophrenic people with the same praise as the trans cult.

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        Aren't those the same thing?

        1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

          Probably measurable crossover for sure.

        2. Jefferson Paul   5 months ago

          No, but there is a large overlap of trans-identifying people and people with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

      2. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

        How many people would we have to pretend they're Napoleon one wonders. And how exactly would we accommodate that delusion? Do we let them invade Belgium and Italy?

        1. Jefferson Paul   5 months ago

          Are you telling me I'm not Napoleon?

          1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

            I thought you were Jefferson?

            1. Jefferson Paul   5 months ago

              I actually chose my screen name as a mishmash of Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul. So I'm Jefferson, Ron Paul, and Napoleon. I'm sure there's room in my head for a few more voices, though.

            2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

              I thought I might be Alexander the Great. But then I read that General Patton was in fact once Alexander. And I’m certain I was never Patton, unless reincarnation doesn’t follow what we perceive as linear time. So maybe I am Patton, just not yet.

        2. Vernon Depner   5 months ago

          Once a year, put them all in a stadium with weapons. Last one standing is Napoleon.

          1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

            And make it pay-per-view? Hold it two Sundays after the Superbowl (that way it's after the Daytona 500 also) when sports entertainment is kind of in a doldrums anyhow.

    4. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

      And yet another one wanted to shoot up a school in Indiana.

      https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1890165204652106029?s=46&t=qeA47-JjK6vq0pfnxg60dA

      Trinity Shockley, a student at Mooresville High School in Indiana was arrested by police for reportedly planning to commit a mass shooting on Valentine's Day.

      Shockley self-identified in a personal notebook as a "transgender male who has a lot of homicidal thoughts" and in a Snapchat message as a "12th-grade transgender person named Jamie"

      Police discovered Shockley's bedroom contained a collage of previous mass shooters as well as buttons with mass shooter's faces on them.

      Shockley also reportedly confessed to a school counselor to being s*xually attracted to Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz.

      Multiple AR-15 magazines, a box of .40 caliber rounds, and a soft armor vest were allegedly recovered from Shockley's home.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

        Turns out it's not a good idea to indulge a bunch of mentally ill people who think they're the opposite sex.

      2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        Trannies sure are unbalanced and violent.

  10. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    Well past time to reevaluate this status quo.

    The Founders never meant for that. The Pinkslips are coming, Elizabeth! One if by email, two if by sign taped to the office door! Don't tread on my defined benefit pension!

  11. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

    For the first time in over 20 years of polling, Right Direction EXCEEDS Wrong Track today.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      OMG! Has the whole country gone MAGA?

      1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

        If you don't vote for communists, you might be MAGA.

        1. Quicktown Brix   5 months ago

          *RFK doesn't count*

    2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

      They need to slow down and stop doing what the people want. We have non political dedicated civil servants that know what is best for us.

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        "Cutting waste is fine, but they're doing it with an axe/meat saw/butcher's knife"

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   5 months ago

          When a wood chipper would be more efficient.

          1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

            I saw we take off an nuke it from space. It's the only way.

  12. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    For those who care about the Forest Service, they interestingly paused doing prescribed burns in California in 2024...

    Because Trump said they should. #Resistance

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      Smokey the Bear was in the midst of a gender transition and not available for comment.

      1. Ajsloss   5 months ago

        I thought he was locked in a trunk (I'm going to be that guy and let you know it's just Smokey Bear, not Smokey the Bear).

        1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

          In a swing into pedantry on my part, he is both 'Smokey Bear' and 'Smokey, the bear'.

          1. Quicktown Brix   5 months ago

            Smokey (the?) Bear is well known for being pedantic.

            "Only who can prevent forest fires? You pressed 'you' referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is 'you'."

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX1x7pfH8fw

            1. Ajsloss   5 months ago

              An all-time great.

              1. Dillinger   5 months ago

                word.

          2. Fats of Fury   5 months ago

            Smokey the Pig unfortunately met up with Oscar Mayer and is now known as Smokey the Links.

  13. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

    Chemjeffery in the courts

    Judges blocking Trump government efficiency moves have history of liberal activism

    President Donald Trump‘s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government and rein in wasteful spending have been stymied by a slate of judges with long histories of liberal judicial activism.

    Judge Paul Engelmayer
    Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a preliminary injunction on Feb. 8 stopping DOGE from accessing Treasury Department records, arguing that the inquiries could place sensitive personal information at risk and that the efficiency department likely lacks legal authority.

    Engelmayer has a long history of derailing Trump’s agenda. In 2019, for instance, the judge overturned a federal rule that would have granted healthcare workers greater leeway in opting out of providing procedures, such as abortions, for religious reasons. Hospitals and clinics that didn’t comply with the rule could’ve seen their federal funding cut. The judge said the Trump administration “acted arbitrarily and capriciously” by promulgating the rule.

    The judge’s support of liberal policies is more than ideological. Federal records show that while working for the Democratic-aligned law firm WilmerHale, he personally donated nearly $30,000 to Democratic candidates between 1992 and 2010, with Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign being one of the largest beneficiaries. Engelmayer was later appointed to the federal bench by Obama.

    Judge Angel Kelley
    Ruling from a federal district court in Boston, Judge Angel Kelley granted a temporary restraining order on Monday against the Trump administration’s attempt to cut “indirect costs” tied up in NIH research grants, which represent funds designated to administrative costs at universities or research centers not directly tied to research.

    Kelley, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, was introduced during her confirmation hearing by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as someone who “has made it a personal mission to bring about change through her role on the bench.” Kelley describes herself as someone who believes “there is systemic racism in almost all systems, particularly the court system,” and that diversity is an important factor in making decisions.

    Judge Amy Berman Jackson
    Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who was appointed by Obama to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled on Monday that special counsel Hampton Dellinger, who handles whistleblower issues and Hatch Act compliance, could return to his job after being fired by Trump.

    Jackson has a history of handling criminal proceedings for those close to Trump, including Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. She sentenced Stone to over three years in prison after he was found guilty of lying under oath and handed down harsh sentences to people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, including a wounded global war on terrorism veteran.

    Before ascending to the bench, Jackson donated at least $1,500 to Democratic candidates, campaign finance records show.

    Judge John J. McConnell Jr.
    Another Obama appointee, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island John J. McConnell Jr., ordered the Trump administration to reverse its freeze of federal grant funding on Monday, suggesting that the Trump administration officials responsible for carrying out the spending pause could face criminal charges.

    McConnell has perhaps the strongest financial ties to the Democratic Party among the judges who have gotten in the way of the president’s efficiency agenda. A Daily Caller News Foundation report published Monday found that he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic political committees during his time as a private attorney, including a significant chunk to Obama, who later nominated him to the federal bench.

    McConnell’s wife is also a major donor, giving over a quarter million dollars to Democratic candidates and PACs in the years leading up to her husband becoming a federal judge.

    Finances aside, McConnell served as the director of Rhode Island Planned Parenthood for four years and has collaborated with the American Civil Liberties Union, an anti-Trump legal group.

    Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    The judge who blocked DOGE from accessing Treasury Department payment records, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, was nominated to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton in 1997.

    She is the same judge who, in 2024, sentenced anti-abortion activists to prison after they staged a protest at an abortion clinic. As Kollar-Kotelly was sentencing a 75-year-old Catholic woman for praying in front of the clinic, the woman’s husband and attorney pleaded with her for mercy, citing the woman’s advanced age and rapidly declining health.

    “I feel like Paulette is dying,” her husband said. “In my heart, I think she’s having a hard time staying alive.” Kollar-Kotelly responded to the plea by sentencing the elderly and ill woman to two years in federal prison and by insulting her faith.

    “I would suggest that, in terms of your religion, that one of the tenets is that you should make the effort during this period of time, when it may be difficult in terms of for your husband, to make every effort to remain alive, to do the things that you need to do to survive because that’s part of the tenets of your religion,” Kollar-Kotelly said.

    Trump pardoned the anti-abortion activists during the early days of his second administration.

    Judge George O’Toole Jr.
    U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out its program allowing civil servants to resign but still receive pay and benefits through Sept. 30 in an effort to reduce the number of bureaucrats serving in government. O’Toole later lifted the block, and one senior Trump administration official told Semafor that roughly 75,000 civil servants have accepted the offer.

    O’Toole also temporarily blocked part of Trump’s executive order recognizing only two sexes from going into effect, stopping prison officials from moving transgender women to men’s prisons.

    Judge John Bates
    Washington, D.C.-based District Judge John Bates has the distinction of being a Republican-appointed judge who has historically stood in the way of Trump’s agenda.

    Bates, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by then-President George W. Bush in 2001, ordered government agencies on Tuesday to restore webpages promoting gender ideology, arguing that they had been taken down “without adequate notice or reasoned explanation.”

    Bates clashed with Trump in 2018 when he required the president’s administration to continue processing new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals applications. In 2020, the judge shut down a policing panel established by Trump to formulate “law and order” related policy proposals, and in 2022, he blamed the president for inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

    1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      Must the President cooperate with another attempted coup?

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   5 months ago

      Judge shopping pays off.

      1. Social Justice is neither   5 months ago

        And activists are the best investment as they stay bought longer and more intensely even with the $0.00 cash outlay.

    3. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

      There’s some serious quid pro quo in there. Donate $30,000 to Democrat candidates and get a judgeship.

    4. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      It's almost like Democrats lie when they decry judicial activism.

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        It's (D)ifferent.

        1. Chupacabra   5 months ago

          As long as they do it first....

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

            Exactly, just ask Sarc.

            1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

              No need. The few times he is rarely here he reminds us.

              1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

                Sarc, who?

                1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

                  Well, Sarc ain't exactly a "who". He's more of a "what".

                  1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

                    As in when you muck boot comes off halfway across a frozen occupied cow pen and you have to put your foot down and you wonder what it was you just stepped in.

    5. TrickyVic (old school)   5 months ago

      This is what you get when people believe morality can usurp law.

    6. Rick James   5 months ago

      Judge Paul Engelmayer
      Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a preliminary injunction on Feb. 8 stopping DOGE from accessing Treasury Department records, arguing that the inquiries could place sensitive personal information at risk and that the efficiency department likely lacks legal authority.

      Stop and think about that for a moment. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to access the records of an executive agency.

      And Jacob Sullum thinks you can take on the deep state in a soft-diplomacy, go-along-to-get along way by making alliances with Democrats AND Republicans though carefully written legislative efforts.

      It's quite telling that the President whose done more to achieve Milton Friedman's libertarian dream would be opposed by a Reason writer.

      The Deep State does not go quietly into that good night. They not only have senators and congressmen, they have judges, the CIA, the FBI and all the rest of the Intelligence services, they have courts, they have judges, both federal and state, they have prosecutors and I might as well say what everyone else is thinking: They have violent activists who are willing to assassinate whomever they need to on the thinnest of implied orders from the aforementioned.

      If you're going to... as Milton Friedman said, "eliminate wholesale entire executive agencies" by sweeping them from the table, you're going to need an unafraid brawler who's willing to take on the politicians, lawyers, judges, courts, spies, secret agents and assassins who will want to kill your agenda and keep unchecked spending unchecked.

      Edit:

      That's the central problem with beltway libertarians-- they actually believe that the entire country believes and agrees with their center-left liberal-ish libertarianism, if you just reason with them enough. "Hey man, this bureaucratic spending hurts the economy, imagine how we'd be able to *checks liberal checklist* lift brown people out of poverty and help the poors if we could just get the size and scope of government under control. Oh, and did I mention Chase Oliver is gay? Hello? Hello? *looks at friend* I think I got cut off... Hello?

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

        So the only way to enact the libertarian vision is with authoritarianism run amok?

        Why not just appoint Trump El Presidente for Life and be done with it? Maybe give him a nice Generalissimo coat...

        If we can't get the libertarian vision enacted via persuasion, then the game is over. We can't do it. Trying to impose it by authoritarian means undercuts the entire purpose of doing this. "I will force you to be free, or else!"

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

          Do you’d rather have a fourth branch of government that thinks it’s independent even though it’s supposed to be fully controlled by the executive?

        2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

          Chemjeffery gone wild.

          Rick: "Stop and think about that for a moment. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to access the records of an executive agency."

          Lying Jeffy: "Why not just appoint Trump El Presidente for Life and be done with it? Maybe give him a nice Generalissimo coat..."

          Lol.

        3. Rick James   5 months ago

          So the only way to enact the libertarian vision is with authoritarianism run amok?

          If by 'authoritarianism run amok' you mean the Executive branch being able to look into what the Executive Branch executes in discretionary spending, hell yes.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

            If you're going to... as Milton Friedman said, "eliminate wholesale entire executive agencies" by sweeping them from the table, you're going to need an unafraid brawler who's willing to take on the politicians, lawyers, judges, courts, spies, secret agents and assassins who will want to kill your agenda and keep unchecked spending unchecked.

            But at the end of the day, if the 'brawler' loses in court, loses according to the law, loses according to the will of other co-equal branches of government, then the 'brawler' stops brawling.... yes? Or does this 'brawler' continue to brawl?

            1. Rick James   5 months ago

              He continues to brawl with the full throated support of the American People, or as Reason calls them "MAGA world".

        4. Nobartium   5 months ago

          About time you realized that the ideology is a permanent minority.

          Javier is the template, accept it or be left behind.

        5. Nobartium   5 months ago

          If we can't get the libertarian vision enacted via persuasion, then the game is over.

          And this also why all other forms of liberalism fail.

          The paradox of tolerance does have an answer, but that you refuse to use it will keep you from ever having what you want.

    7. Mataratones   5 months ago

      Thomas Jefferson was really good on how dangerous the judiciary was, e.g.: "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, boni judicis est ampliare juris-dictionem...Having found, from experience, that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining hold on them, under a practice first introduced into England by Lord Mansfield. An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning."

      Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie (25 December 1820)

      and

      "You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

      Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis (1820)

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        Very interesting. I hadn't read that before.

      2. DesigNate   5 months ago

        Thanks for these!

    8. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

      Impeach them all. Then disbar them.

  14. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    Manhattan's U.S. attorney on Thursday resigned rather than obey an order from a top Justice Department official to drop the corruption case against New York City's mayor, Eric Adams...

    Someone's aiming to be a Blue State AG someday.

    1. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

      Danielle Sassoon, the Manhattan U.S. attorney who has now resigned, is a member of the conservative Federalist Society and a former clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia...

      Okay, maybe not. WHAT'S HER ANGLE?

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        The same as Mitch McConnell's.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

          Inconsequential?

          1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

            Financial?

      2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

        Seems to be one of those attempting a long march through institutions got upset.

        She's defending an obvious political indictment brought only after Adams disagreed with Bidens administration. Release the records on when they first looked into Adams.

        The law should look at crimes first. Adamas has all the appearance they were directed to look at the man to find the crime.

      3. Rick James   5 months ago

        Federalist society: Same as Liz Cheney

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   5 months ago

      Just to point out, the case was dismissed without prejudice meaning he can be charged in the future unlike the Biden crime family.

      1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

        Against the DoJ wishes. Many of the federal judges also did this with the J6ers who were not yet tried. They outright refused to dismiss with prejudice.

  15. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

    '"Manhattan's U.S. attorney on Thursday resigned rather than obey an order from a top Justice Department official to drop the corruption case against New York City's mayor, Eric Adams," reports The New York Times.'

    What happened to "Resist!" principles and burrowing into the belly of the beast in order to kill it from the inside?

    1. Dillinger   5 months ago

      drop the charge? but I'm so pretty!

  16. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

    Senate Bill Would End Bank Discrimination Against Firearms Industry

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      Black guns matter!

    2. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

      Expect a diatribe from Jakey or Eric on how banks should be free to do business with whoever they like and thus this bill as a disaster and further sign of growing Republican authoritarianism.

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        Well with their USAID money cut off, we may start seeing less of those diatribes.

  17. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

    The "I didn't elect him" starter pack

    1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      TV Dems say 2 things: “nobody voted for this” & everyone hates Elon.

      They have learned nothing. And they lie. Read ‘em & weep on Axios:

      “Every AZ swing voter in our focus groups approve of Trump's actions — & most support Musk's efforts to slash government.”

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        It should be a political imperative among conservatives to let the left continue training all their fire -- outside of Lawfare 2.0 -- on Elon Musk.

        Hundred billionaire devotes time, energy, resources -- at no cost to taxpayer -- to identifying, exposing, and working inside admin to eliminate all the asinine, genuinely detrimental, corrupt, nefarious contracts, programs, offices, and slush funds we've been paying for for years.

        Arguably the greatest entrepreneur of our time is serving as management consultant for the government gratis.

        And they want to vilify that guy?
        They want to make him the bogeyman?
        They think that's a winning play on the politics and/or merits?

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

          Does TDS cause brain worms, or do brain worms cause TDS?

          1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

            Yes. Look at turd.

        2. Ska   5 months ago

          It is a winning play if you think the 25% of the population that is Vote Blue no Matter Who are actually representative of the overall voting populace.

          I mean, I don't think that, but they must. Well, then again, they might be retarded.

      2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

        Hope this means Mark Kelly is toast in 26.

        1. Chupacabra   5 months ago

          Have they cleaned up the voting fraud in Maricopa county?

          1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

            Nope. Arresting everyone who asks still.

        2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

          Magneto got rid of the wrong Senator Kelly.

      3. TrickyVic (old school)   5 months ago

        Oh, now dems have a problem with nobody voted for this?

        Calling democrat presidential candidate 2024,

    2. Small w woodchippertarian   5 months ago

      When I hear the "We didn't vote him in" thing, I think: There are 2 to 3 million federal employees depending on what news reports it. Federal elections cover 542 positions. "We" didn't vote for any of those other schlubs.

      Unfortunately, the NM AG is joining a lawsuit stating that Musk's position requires senate approval like other cabinet members. I'm not sure if I'll pen him a missive telling him to kindly fuck off.

      1. Truthfulness   5 months ago

        You have nothing to lose.

    3. damikesc   5 months ago

      I love the response of "We didn't elect any bureaucrats nor any Cabinet secretaries, either"

      1. Spiritus Mundi   5 months ago

        Or any member of the Judicial branch. A third of the government power structure.

  18. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams's opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment...

    The one prosecutor who's never forced a plea deal.

  19. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

    'Is diversity, equity, and inclusion over? We chatted with the illustrious Aaron Sibarium (who gets a ton of great scoops and is worth a Twitter follow) about Donald Trump's efforts to root out wokeness in the federal government.'

    No. But maybe DEI 2.0 will encourage actual diversity (of thought), equity based on individual achievement, and inclusion that encompasses even those icky alt-right populists.

  20. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    Should we understand Trump's tariffs as symbolic? As foreign policy instruments? As executive whims?

    They are his will, and we are not meant to understand.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      "Only those who have achieved True MAGA Consciousness may grasp these mysteries."

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

        Trump should start posting in Latin.

        1. Vernon Depner   5 months ago

          Or Klingon.

          1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

            That would be epic. Trump giving speeches in full Klingon.

  21. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    Apple and Google are restoring TikTok to their app stores following noises made by the new attorney general signaling that the Chinese-owned social media ban won't be enforced.

    Selective enforcement of a law? Now I've heard everything.

    1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      Trump wants to censor the internet.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      Did Baron start hanging out with Hunter?

  22. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

    Mom packs us a lunch and we're off to school
    They call us nerds 'cause we're so uncool
    They laugh at our clothes, they laugh at our hair
    The girls walk by with their nose in the air

    So go ahead, put us down
    One of these days we'll turn it around
    Won't be long, mark my words
    Time has come for revenge of the nerds

    1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

      It’s all right. It’s OK.
      You’ll work for us one day.

    2. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

      Who would have guessed the smart guys figured a way in?

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

      Not just nerds, but the nerds of the nerd class.

    4. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

      I thought nerds and geeks were cool, are we back to being uncool?

      1. Outlaw Josey Wales   5 months ago

        To the theatre kids, yes.

  23. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland. We must—and we are—focusing on security of our own borders...

    In that there's enough money for the right people?

  24. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

    'Apple and Google are restoring TikTok to their app stores following noises made by the new attorney general signaling that the Chinese-owned social media ban won't be enforced.'

    Do they come with warning labels?

  25. Fist of Etiquette   5 months ago

    In leaked audio, Jamie Dimon takes his employees, especially the younger ones, to the woodshed over their desire to keep "working" remotely.

    But their professors never taught them about basic work requirements.

  26. Earth-based Human Skeptic   5 months ago

    'J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon dressed down his employees over remote work and laziness'

    Wow, what did Musk do to threaten J.P. Morgan?

  27. lwt1960   5 months ago

    Layoffs- that last sentence saved the entire piece. I actually thought were going to lament those "dedicated public servants" on the job less than a year who picked up their torches and pitchforks when asked to actually go into their office.

    Fires- Government skeptics aren't the problem. It's the environmental laws which allow a single hiker who laments the uprooting of a native shrub to stop the process of protecting the life, limb and property of thousands of homeowners. Need a definition of insanity? Look no furhter.

    New York- yes, it was rank politics, but NY has reaped what it has sown. Can you blame Trump for thinking Mr. Adams might not get a fair trial, regardless of the strength of the indictment? I appreciate Ms. Sassoon's moral stance and she was right to resign, but we live in the real world, not the ivory tower. Let's hope her next position is in a jurisdiction not bent on (and proud of) making a mockery of the justice system.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      Yeah, even if the indictment was justified--and I have no doubt that it was, just because you don't get to be mayor of NEW YORK CITY without being dirty to a certain extent--it's obvious that it was entirely based on political animus rather than the law, because that's how Biden rolled. This is the same guy who voted for Trump and laughed about it after he got couped out of office by his former boss. He's always been the very definition of petty.

      1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

        Even if justified, I'm 99% convinced it was selective enforcement.

  28. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

    I guess they were sorry or something...

    -----------------------
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/02/13/why-is-massachusetts-the-only-state-that-releases-illegal-aliens-charged-with-child-rape-n2652181

    I’ve covered a lot of illegal immigration related stories around the country in recent years.

    Massachusetts is the only state that frequently releases illegal aliens charged w/ aggravated child rape & refuses to cooperate w/ ICE on detainer requests for them. Even in other sanctuary states & cities, I almost never see a lack of cooperation for child rape.

    In this case, a Guatemalan charged with 3x forcible child rape & 3x aggravated child rape was released on bail by Essex County, MA, with ICE Boston saying their detainer request was ignored & they were not notified of his release.

    During one of my embeds with ICE Boston last year, they arrested four illegal aliens charged w/ child rape in a single morning. All of them had been released by local jurisdictions with ICE detainers ignored.

    I asked a MA law enforcement source how this keeps happening there? And how does someone charged with so many counts of forcible & aggravated child rape even get bail in the first place?

    “Welcome to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” is the response I got.

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   5 months ago

      And dems can't understand why they are losing voters.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      LOL, if my kid was raped by any kind of criminal, illegal immigrant or otherwise, I guarantee I'd be looking to go Law-Abiding Citizen on these people.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        There was an episode of Shotime’s ‘Masters of Horror’ where a couple tracked a serial killer (played by George Wendt form Cheers) who had murdered their daughter. They lured him into a trap and took him captive. They had assembled a soundproofed room where they intended to torture him. With medical equipment to keep him alive as long as possible.

    3. Michael Ejercito   5 months ago

      Did not Spotlight take place in Massachusetts?

    4. mad.casual   5 months ago

      I wish I could say that Reason really only meant to support the other kind of immigrant-owned taco truck, but I can't.

    5. Vernon Depner   5 months ago

      These are just cultural misunderstandings.

    6. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

      Pedophiles will soon be the new darling of the democrat party. Replacing trannies.

  29. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

    https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/02/13/27-trillion-in-fraudulent-government-payments-discovered-n4936946

    On Wednesday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) held her DOGE subcommittee hearing and announced it has discovered that over the past 20 years, the U.S. government has squandered $2.7 trillion on improper payments. Just last year alone, the government handed out $170 billion to individuals who were deceased, criminals, or otherwise ineligible for government programs.

    Even more alarming, the government made $44 billion in payments with no clear record of where the money actually went — officials simply don’t know.

    Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest culprits when it comes to these improper payments. The Biden administration lost a staggering $764 billion due to a combination of inaccurate record-keeping, bureaucratic incompetence, and outright fraud.

    1. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

      Everyone needs to be dismissed.
      You had your chance, and you blew it.

    2. Chupacabra   5 months ago

      I'm sure someone knows where that $44 billion went.

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest culprits when it comes to these improper payments.

      This is why I keep harping on the fact that, while we should get a peace dividend out of pulling back our global military commitments, the real meat of what's causing our national debt is right in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

      Now, Medicare Part A is "mostly" paid for, via the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. In FY24, the shortfall was $21 billion. Given the demand with the Boomers aging out, that's actually not that bad, and fixing the delta there could be done simply by going after the medical monopolies that are overcharging Medicare on the front end, and aggressively cutting off fraudulent payments for services on the back end.

      Medicare Parts B and D (listed as "Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund",) Medicaid, and Payments to Health Care Trust Funds, on the other hand, are pure deficit spending. About $1.64 TRILLION in FY2. We don't spend that much on defense even after taking the VA, Homeland Security, and DoEnergy's nuke management into account.

      Trump's talking about cutting down the DoD budget by about half. That would certainly save a lot of money, but it still only gets last year's deficit down to about $1.4 trillion. Unless he finds enough sack to actually do something about the medical racket going on in the government, whether that's cutting down on fraudulent payments, an actual Medicare B/D and Medicaid tax, cutting down these services significantly, or a combination of the three, he's simply not going to get there. The math always wins.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        I’m sure tackling Medicare/Medicaid fraud is coming very soon. It hasn’t even been a month yet, and the democrats are fighting tooth and nail to protect all the fraud.

    4. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

      “climate justice travels through a Free Palestine” == $50M?

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/it-s-canceled-trump-s-team-exposes-biden-administration-s-50-million-gift-to-group/ar-AA1z1Ysf

      United States of America President, Donald Trump’s appointed new administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, said he has cancelled a Joe Biden-era $50 million environmental justice grant to an organisation that believes “climate justice travels through a Free Palestine”.

      According to Fox News, Zeldin, who was sworn in as the EPA administrator at the end of January 2025, was on “The Story with Martha MacCallum” on Thursday, where he spoke about cancelling the grant.

      “Just earlier today, I cancelled a $50 million grant to an organisation called the Climate Justice Alliance.

      “They say that climate justice runs through a free Palestine. I think that the American taxpayer wouldn’t want $50 million going to this left-wing advocacy group. It’s cancelled,” he said.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        Zeldin doesn’t fuck around. He will take a machete to all the fraud and leftist bullshit at EPA.

  30. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

    Jeffsarcs immigration plan.

    Bill Melugin
    @BillMelugin_
    This past summer, in an operation on Nantucket Island, ICE arrested four illegal aliens who had all been charged w/ raping or sexually assaulting Nantucket children or residents. All of them had been released into the community with ICE detainers ignored.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

      Whew. At least it wasn’t Martha’s Vineyard, they might have gotten free pizza too.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        Cheese pizza?

    2. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

      This is how vigilantly groups get formed.

    3. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      There was an old man from Nantucket...

      1. mad.casual   5 months ago

        The little girl was from Nantucket. The young man who fell asleep in the canoe was from Peru. And nobody would be going to St. Ives that day.

        1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

          There was a young girl from Nantucket, An illegal thought he would fuck it.

          1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

            She said “No!”

            But he said “Let’s go!”

            And he committed rape, like a horny ape

    4. damikesc   5 months ago

      They're only raping the children that Americans will not rape.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        Shrike is only one child molester. There is a limit to how many small children even he can molest.

    5. Vernon Depner   5 months ago

      Well, have you seen how little girls dress these days?

  31. Longtobefree   5 months ago

    " . . . per Politico . . . "

    Really? Have you learned nothing?

    *checks web site name* Oh, never mind.

    1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      Gotta make use of those USAID sponsored "facts" while you can still get them.

  32. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

    Fun cartoon of Elon cutting programs.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbm6h42bkrE

    1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

      I love Freedomttoons.

  33. Ajsloss   5 months ago

    I do appreciate the "nerd reich" sign. Much cleverer than a pussy hat.

    1. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

      Yeah, cutting wasteful spending is so nazi.

      1. Ajsloss   5 months ago

        I'll clarify. I don't appreciate the message, I appreciate the rhyme.

        1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

          Depends on if your using a southern German/Hochdeutsch or Northern German dialact. In northern German the ch is soft and often pronounced ch, not k like in southern German and Hochdeutsch.

          1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

            The Mennonites around here used to pronounce it as "Hawk-doish".

            1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

              Anabaptists tended to come from Northern Germany and the Netherlands.

              1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

                I also believe that it was popular in parts of Switzerland.

  34. MWAocdoc   5 months ago

    "They are about gutting the federal government ..." Yes, he seems to get it up to this point, but then he seems totally clueless a few phrases later: "... agenda that prioritizes cronyism over competence." We DO want someone to gut the federal government and we do NOT want anyone - competent or incompetent - doing a good job at something we don't want government to do at all. Now do you get it, Everett?

  35. MWAocdoc   5 months ago

    And then the Reason writers turn right around and seem clueless on top of it all: "But some of those workers were those who specifically work on wildfire management which seems useful"

    No, Liz, they are NOT "useful" in any sense of the word. Have you forgotten that the Federal government should not own ANY land at all? Why should the Federal government manage wildfires at all? Why should our tax money bail California homeowners out after the state government they elected "mismanaged" ... er, um ... whatever it is they mismanaged? Are you a libertarian, Liz? Do you understand what the goal is here?

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

      CA's wildfire problem has gotten worse over the past 50 years, as, in the interest of saving the 'Pink and Yellow Squirmy', the CA government caved to the P and Y S tree-huggers and drove the lumber industry out of the state.
      That industry used to manage the forests out of their profits, not the taxpayer's money and they did it well and efficiently, two words which never apply to a government agency, even if they TRY to do it.

    2. damikesc   5 months ago

      Absolutely. Trump needs to sell as much of our property as possible. Hell, turn unused federal buildings into homeless camps.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        Or democrat detention centers.

  36. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

    Probationary employees tend to be workers who have only been in their jobs for a year or under (or two years in some cases). They have the fewest job protections so they tend to be the easiest to fire.

    Note that this is how it typically is in the private sector when job cuts happen. It's usually the people who haven't been there very long, because companies can't replace the knowledge of their more experienced workers.

    1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

      In this case that knowledge is how to run a department against the wishes of a dem elected politician. Maybe we can lose that knowledge.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

        Yeah, but the probs are low-hanging fruit and it's easier to nudge them out the door.

  37. MWAocdoc   5 months ago

    "Though I'm supportive of DOGE, there is a certain haphazard nature to these firings that leaves me wondering if they'll result in the desired outcome."

    Liz, what is your desired outcome? My desired outcome is a dramatic reduction in the number of Federal employees. If you understand the concept of "low-hanging fruit" the firings do not seem haphazard to me at all! If they are successful at firing 80% of the Federal workforce over the next few months, I will consider it an amazing success. The remaining 20% can handle whatever the Federal government should be doing under the Constitution quite well. The military, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. Bring them all home over the next few months except for the normal Navy worldwide ocean patrols, end the Global War on Terror and Drugs and reassign the most competent of our military personnel to national defense. While you're at it, repeal all laws concerning local militias and encourage the formation and maintenance of the well-regulated militia units "necessary to the security of a free state."

  38. MWAocdoc   5 months ago

    "Even the greatest government skeptics can ostensibly admit that some amount of wildfire-risk mitigation needs to happen if California wants to avoid this cyclical destruction that's becoming routine."

    Not just "no" but "HELL NO!" What makes you think that wildfire-risk CAN be mitigated? And even if you admit that it might be possible, who should be responsible for deciding and carrying out the details? If you build or buy a home in a wildfire-prone area, how is anyone else responsible for your losses? Cyclical destruction by natural forces by definition is PREDICTABLE (cyclical - get it?)

    1. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

      https://dornsife.usc.edu/icw/west-on-fire/

      See The West On Fire website which looks at fire across historical epochs. Very cool stuff.

    2. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

      Had a discussion with some more liberal friends (I was invited to provide my libertarian perspective) a few years back...

      However, if you're the one losing your house or, worse yet, your entire country into the sea, then it doesn't really matter whether the source of climate change is human or natural, you have to do SOMETHING, because you're losing your house, your country or whatever. I think a lot of people are hung up on this, that if there's a possibility we weren't entirely responsible for these changes, then there's no point in doing anything.

      I responded to that with, while trying to *not* get into a "you're a climate-change denier" situation...

      The huge problem with this is that DOING SOMETHING so very, very, very often proves to be exactly the worst possible thing to do. Sea walls built to prevent erosion end up exacerbating erosion. Dikes to control flooding make floods worse. Wildfire suppression efforts make wildfires worse. Subsidies to help insure people against floods and hurricanes keep people building their homes in flood-prone and hurricane areas.

      Sometimes the answer *has* to be people lose their homes and society has to say "That's too bad, sorry." Maybe help them move somewhere else, but we 100% cannot support rebuilding your house in the floodplain/wildfire zone/volcano hillside...

      Will we really succeed in building 20 foot seawall around NYC or Miami or NOLA? When will we just say: "Folks, in 20 years this is all going to be underwater. Enjoy it while it lasts, but you should really consider moving, because we can't afford to save all your houses and businesses."

      From a Libertarian POV, it might already be past the time when government should cut the cords that keep people living in areas that are projected to be hit hardest by climate change. That action would be to simply say: you can buy that piece of property, and even build on it. But no one will be willing to insure it, and we will not have laws that force them too; nor will government at any level cover any loses on that property. And for the people who already built there and live there, well, maybe they chose poorly and why is it my problem? I was smart enough to NOT build my house in a fire zone or a floodplain or in a city that is 10 feet below current sea level and expected to be 20 feet below in 50 years.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

        One of the problems with this analysis is, IF one accepts the premise that humans are at least in some part responsible for climate change, then those humans who are causing this harm are generating a negative externality by definition. That is, they are creating a harm that affects third parties, and this harm creates a cost that cannot be reflected in market prices. And a basic sense of justice would demand that if one creates a harm that affects someone else, one ought to be held responsible for that harm in some way shape or form. By not holding those individuals responsible in some way, your argument incentivizes people to externalize their costs. "Go ahead and pollute the environment, if someone else suffers as a result, well then that's too bad but there's nothing we can do."

        1. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

          Tell us again you're not a leftist.

        2. MWAocdoc   5 months ago

          "Externalities" is not the moral premise you seem to think it is. Externalities is the excuse those who oppose free market private enterprise resort to when they are about to lose the logical argument to people with overwhelming facts and logic in a desperate attempt to trump them hoping that they will look confused and forget to dismiss "externalities" with the extreme prejudice it deserves. If you have been harmed by people contributing to global warming, the remedy is to sue them and prove in court that their activities caused global warming and that your damages are quantifiable so that the claimants can be compensated by the defendants. So go peddle it somewhere else.

        3. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

          Going straight to the climate-change response, I see.

          The point I was making is, I think, valid absent climate change. There were always hurricanes in Florida. There were always tornados in the midwest. Norwesters always battered the shores of New England. Drought and wildfires and earthquakes have always happened in California. Rivers like the Mississippi always flooded, heck I'm pretty sure every creek or river has overflow its banks well before climate change.

          Subsidizing people to build and live in dangerous areas--and taking money from me by force to do so--is wrong-thought all around. I'd have thought that a true libertarian could see that, climate change or not.

          1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

            Hell, the Egyptian culture was entirely founded on the Nile flooding.

          2. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

            When Lying Jeffy claims to be a libertarian, he’s lying. When Lying Jeffy claims to be a radical individualist, he’s lying.

            As a good rule of thumb, if Lying Jeffy is claiming anything, he’s lying.

            1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

              He’s ’Chemjeff: Neo Marxist Authoritarian and Child Rape Enthusiast’.

          3. DesigNate   5 months ago

            Jeff is one of the true libertarians, so obviously the rest of us are in the wrong.

        4. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

          "One of the problems with this analysis is, IF one accepts"

          Jeffy's magic "if" does it again.

        5. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

          Fortunately AGW is bullshit. So it doesn’t matter.

      2. MWAocdoc   5 months ago

        One thing not accounted for in that otherwise excellent narrative is that the liberals start from the assumption that private property is not only bad but also the root of all social evil. They cynically enable government to bail out "victims" in order to further the deeper narrative and hasten the demise of money, property and profit - i.e. "capitalism."

      3. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

        One more to the reading list: "Fossil Future", Epstein. Between he and Schellenberger ("Apocalypse Never"), they make your point very well.

  39. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

    there is no evidence these employees were anything but dedicated public servants," said government employee union president Everett Kelley in a statement. "They are about gutting the federal government, silencing workers, and forcing agencies into submission

    oh god the tears, they are so delicious.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      Imagine actually believing that you're a fourth branch of government that serves as a check on the Chief Executive. This guy is literally your boss, bish.

    2. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

      "It's stripping out, likely, a whole new generation of talent for our government,"

      Not a whole new generation of talent for our government!?!? Oh now what will we ever do without 6000 young bureaucrats in the Dept of Redundancy Department!

    3. Uncle Jay   5 months ago

      "They are about gutting the federal government, silencing workers, and forcing agencies into submission."

      So, what's Kelley's point?

    4. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

      I can only get so hard, stop it.

  40. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

    The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland. We must—and we are—focusing on security of our own borders," he continued, saying that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO, should not expect to get all of its land back from Russia, and that no American troops will be used in Ukraine as part of a peace process or security guarantee.

    The nerve of this guy to put the nation's defense and security above that of a foreign puppet state that's used primarily for money-laundering and prostitution trafficking for the Atlantic Council.

  41. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

    ... Pete Hegseth "told almost 50 of Ukraine's Western backers .. that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe,'

    Ukrainian-flag-in-bio bros in shambles.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

      The Stupid Pedo Bushpig will be along soon enough to whine about it, call the administration a bunch of Putin stooges, and call us Russian assets.

      1. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

        Ukrainian twitter war-boner gang losing their minds right now.

        I know twitter isnt real life but based on twitter, ukrainians suck.

        For months its been nonstop warporn closesups of drone killings with gleeful and mocking comments. Just gross. It get they hate russians and all but it's been far far worse than say, WWII american tone vs. germans.

        Now, it's all rage and threats because it looks liek US wont pursue a bigger war with Russia on Ukraine's behalf. Bluster and shit talking and righteous indignation. The entitlement to america's war machine is not a human right, Ukraine bros.

        1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

          John Bolton has been screaming and crying all week long.

    2. MWAocdoc   5 months ago

      Both sides are wrong, wrong, WRONG on this issue. Ukraine was stupid to abandon its nuclear deterrent in the name of Western nuclear disarmament. America was wrong to remain in NATO after the breakup of the Warsaw Pact. America is wrong to continue to guarantee European military security and subsidize their defense spending. Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine and has been especially cruel in the way they have prosecuted the war. Trump is wrong to make inflammatory statements that will neither help Ukraine to expel the invaders nor negotiate a just peace. America is wrong to subsidize the military support of Ukraine in defending itself against Russian military aggression, although there should be no objection to selling them military hardware and ammunition since we were complicit in setting them up for invasion in the first place. Plenty of blame to go around here and no quick or easy solutions. But can we at least avoid aggravating the already bad situation?

      1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

        Trump seems to be the most realistic about it. He's right that Ukraine needs peace, they will have to give up land to achieve that, and no, they aren't getting into NATO. All seem pretty fucking realistic, pragmatic, not inflammatory to me.

        1. MWAocdoc   5 months ago

          Whether he (and you) are correct or not, perhaps the President of the United States saying that in public was not the right way to go about it? I tried to teach my kids at an early age that they should avoid saying out loud whatever pops into their heads immediately. Maybe Trump's father never tried to teach him that. My own opinion is that Ukraine might NOT "need" peace more than they need freedom from invasion by foreign military powers, but it's not up to me or you ... it's up to THEM!

          1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

            As long as we're funding them, and giving them weapons, yes we do have a fucking day in it. And Ukraine is slowly losing and bleeding to death. If we withdraw support, they collapse. So fuck talking softly. If they want our support, they need to face reality.

          2. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

            If they don't like what we're saying, then don't accept our aid. I'd be more than happy to keep silent and not send them one more single dollar or one more fucking bullet (paid for by our taxes). The fact is, they know they couldn't survive it we withdraw that support. You don't get to get butthurt when your sugar daddy lays down the law.

  42. mad.casual   5 months ago

    "Then, when Justice Department officials transferred the case to the public integrity section in Washington, which oversees corruption prosecutions, the two men who led that unit also resigned," followed by three more a few hours later.

    Glorious! Sucks for Adams, but keep shopping it around for people to resign in the face of. Like an government-attorney, retardedly self-defeating 4B movement where they shave their head and refuse to get pregnant or even date men in response foregoing corruption prosecution. Eventually, everyone will have resigned and the only people left will be the ones who think he shouldn't be prosecuted.

    1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

      I support this plan.

      1. Dillinger   5 months ago

        segunda.

  43. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

    LOL--once again, Daily Fail profiles a "queer activist" turns out to be a pedophilic sex pest:

    Surrey Pride founder, 40, traded WhatsApp messages with volunteer about 'kidnapping schoolchildren', court hears
    The founder of an LGBTQ+ group on trial for multiple child sex offences allegedly spoke of kidnapping schoolchildren, sexually abusing boys and visiting a swimming pool to 'perv', a court has heard.
    Stephen Ireland, 40, co-founded Pride in Surrey in 2018, and David Sutton, 27, was a volunteer with the organisation.
    They are accused of 'targeting children for their sexual proclivities' between 2022 and 2024.
    They have been charged with a total of 40 offences between them, and these include conspiring to sexually assault children, arranging the commission of child sex offences and kidnap.
    Isabel Delamere, for prosecution, told jurors at Guildford Crown Court that conversations were beyond fantasy.
    A trial heard how the pair discussed targeting children outside school gates while pretending to be a talent coach or music manager and how to avoid CCTV.
    Ireland allegedly said in one of the messages 'all I'm thinking of is making out with a 13' and in another he told the volunteer 'every day passes and I wanna do something terrible with you', the court heard.
    Sutton and Ireland also described themselves as 'pedos' in messages.

    Nice of these pedo fags to actually admit it. They're white, too, so they likely won't get the "it's dey culcha!" pass that Pakistanis in the UK get.

    1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      "But muh Catholic priests"

  44. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

    “(For good reading on what should happen after the war, read Reason's Matt Welch.)”

    No Elizabeth, I don’t think I will.

    1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

      Welch is one of the last people I would look to for advice on how to handle anything.

      Especially wedding plans.

  45. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

    So I am guessing that the commentariat is fully in the "burn it all down, I don't care about what happens" stage?

    At what point did you become an anarchist?

    1. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

      When we became broke?

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        *Overwhelming theft and graft*

        "aT wHat pOiNT diD yOu beCoMe aN aNaRchisT?"

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

          We all understand your team's playbook now.

          Step 1: Find spending you don't like
          Step 2: Redefine that spending to be "waste" or "graft", and try to cut it
          Step 3: If anyone complains, say "If you don't support cutting this spending, that means you support waste and graft"

          It's a dishonest game, but that is the game you are playing.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

            You don't understand shit, fat boy. You're simply pissed your lefty boos are getting their graft and glowie reindeer games cut off.

            There's absolutely nothing dishonest about it, and since you're clearly cheerleading for the government to remain in the status quo, you can drop that "radical individualist" nonsense, too.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

              There's absolutely nothing dishonest about it

              That you are squealing is probably a good sign that I am hitting home.

              I am in favor of trimming government waste. I am not in favor of stupid rash decisions.

              Do the ends justify the means here?

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                That you are squealing is probably a good sign that I am hitting home.

                You're not hitting home on anything, fat boy.

                I am in favor of trimming government waste. I am not in favor of stupid rash decisions.

                You do love your glittering generalities that don't actually do what you say your in favor of doing.

                Do the ends justify the means here?

                More glittering generalities and false dilemmas.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                  A completely non-responsive comment, just full of insults and mockery. Got it.

                  1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                    Offering such a lame defense of your lefty syndicalists deserves such a response. None of your premises are worth considering nor taking seriously. It's all rhetorical smokescreens to cover for the fact that you don't actually want to see these cuts happen.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      You're just name-calling and confirming what I wrote without admitting as much. I think we're done here.

                    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                      And you're resorting to your typical circular reasoning because your dialectic is being called out.

                      Waddle off to the fridge, fat boy.

                    3. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

                      Lying Jeffy: Why won’t you play my disingenuous games!?!?

                  2. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

                    Your bullshit doesn’t require any response besides insults Lying Jeffy.

          2. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

            at least youre more honest now about what "team" you are on. That's an improvement

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

              I'm on Team Libertarian, which is very clearly not your team.

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                Yes, True and Honest Libertarians screech when thousands of government employees are released and billions in government graft is exposed.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                  True and Honest Libertarians would, I imagine, support cutting government spending in a way that is orderly, fair, responsive to the will of the people, and supportive of what the proper role of government ought to be.

                  What I see around here, is a general attitude of "just fire them all, I don't care how it's done or who is fired"

                  1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                    True and Honest Libertarians would, I imagine, support cutting government spending in a way that is orderly, fair, responsive to the will of the people, and supportive of what the proper role of government ought to be.

                    More glittering generalities. There's nothing that has to be "orderly or fair" by your stupid definition.

                    "Fuck you, cut spending." Or did you think that was just a cute catchphrase that didn't need to be followed?

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      Again you are confirming my anarchist hypothesis. If you think "Fuck you cut spending" should be taken literally, without regard to which spending or how it is cut, then yeah, that is the anarchist mentality of "just burn it all down". When did you decide to become an anarchist?

                    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                      Again, you're confirming that you're a circular reasoning sack of monkey shit.

                      You're not mad that spending is being cut, you're mad because it's directly affecting your fellow syndicalists. That's why you're trying the usual false dilemmas, glittering generalities, and circle-jerk debating.

                    3. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

                      "Fuck you, cut spending." Or did you think that was just a cute catchphrase that didn't need to be followed?

                      Yes, this is exactly what jeffsarc thinks.

                    4. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

                      Responsive to the people? Has Lyingjeffy ignored the polls, which show overwhelming support for Trump and majority support for Musk in their actions? Pretty sure this is the will of the people. Or does he mean "the People", as in not all those unwashed masses? I'm betting he means the latter.

                  2. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

                    "will of the people,"

                    I'm pretty sure this is what they voted for. "Elections have consequences and I won", or so I've been told by that sage Barak Obama.

                    Sarc: it's OK, Democrats did it first.

              2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

                Bullshit. You’re obviously on Team Administrative State. You claim that it’s “spending we don’t like”, but why are we giving out federal money to NGOs that spend 10-20% on their “mission” while forking over 60-70% to the people heading it? Dude, that’s actual waste. Are you seriously defending that shit?

                1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

                  He is likely paid from it. See him defending 50% indirect costs as graft.

          3. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

            Lying Jeffy is standing up for the bureaucracy.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

              Troll Mac is trolling yet again. I'm standing up for an orderly and fair process that is consistent with established procedures and responsive to the will of the people. What are you in favor of? Should Trump/Musk have the unchecked authority to cut any spending at all that he doesn't like?

              1. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

                You’re not fooling anyone Lying Jeffy. At least not until your little buddy sarc recovers from the hangover and shows up.

              2. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                Troll Mac is trolling yet again. I'm standing up for an orderly and fair process that is consistent with established procedures and responsive to the will of the people.

                Cutting government IS the "will of the people," you fat fuck. "The people" is not your fellow bureaucrats and Uniparty vermin.

                1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

                  Notice Jeff always stands up for the "established procedures" created by the state to protect the state.

                2. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

                  The people overwhelmingly support this according to the polls. So, it is very responsive to the people, they've wanted this for decades. And they're pretty ecstatic it's happening. Lyingjeffy actually means "the People™" like he means Democracy™ and the Science™. The People™ are not the unwashed masses, but some proverbial creation that supports his leftist ideology, but doesn't actually exist in any great numbers.

                3. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                  What is this "overwhelming support" BS? Trump has an approval rating of 47%. That is high for him, but it is not "overwhelming support". I have not seen a poll of support for DOGE higher than 50%. I am sure that Trump/DOGE approval is 90+% inside the right-wing bubble, but in the real world, it is not quite so high.

                  https://news.gallup.com/interactives/507569/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx

                  1. Marshal   5 months ago

                    It's pretty funny, but jeffey's link is to the presidential approval history which as of now ends with Biden. So he's lecturing us with his normal level of knowledge. Keep up the good work!

                    Meanwhile the net right-track / wrong-track is positive for both total and strong for the first time in over 20 years.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      OMG you have to click on one more link from that page to get to the poll on Trump.

                      https://news.gallup.com/poll/655955/trump-inaugural-approval-rating-historically-low-again.aspx

                    2. Truthfulness   5 months ago

                      @chemjeff radical individualist

                      Trump's approval rating went UP since inauguration. You left that part out!

              3. sarcasmic   5 months ago

                The executive is supposed to faithfully execute laws passed by Congress. If Congress passes a law that says "Spend money on stupid shit" then the Executive is supposed to spend money on stupid shit. That's what it means to be a nation of laws, not men. When the Executive gets to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws to execute and which to ignore, then you've got rule of man, not rule of law.

                Cutting spending begins with Congress. Not the president.

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                  We conduct wars without Congressional approval. There's no reason at this point we can't slash the bureaucracy without it, too.

                  1. sarcasmic   5 months ago

                    The bureaucracies are created to administer laws passed by Congress. Laws are the cause, and bureaucracies are the effect. I'm all for slashing the bureaucracy, but it should be done by repealing laws, not by refusing to enforce or follow them.

                    1. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

                      it should be done by repealing laws

                      Great dude. I'm all for this. Make sure you post here when it happens.

                      Until then I'll take what I can get, even if it ends up being temporary. When and if a Newsome/Cortez administration puts this shit back, that will be on them.

                    2. Spiritus Mundi   5 months ago

                      Funny, you skipped the part where congress leaves the creation of the bureaucracies up to the executive branch.

                    3. Marshal   5 months ago

                      I'm all for slashing the bureaucracy, but it should be done by repealing laws, not by refusing to enforce or follow them.

                      This is a lie, the only thing he objects to is slashing the bureaucracy because the rest is simply wrong. The bureaucracy is changing because Trump and Muck are changing how they are going to go about executing the law. The law does not specify these 2,000 must be employed in these 2,000 jobs, so how can getting rid of them violate the law?

                      Left wingers make these claims because they use what influences their acolytes first and only afterward try to figure out how to make it seem true. But today's blocking effort is no different than yesterday's "Constitutional Crisis!". It sounds big enough to matter but once you examine the facts you understand it just isn't true.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      This is a lie

                      This is where Marshal reads everyone's minds and tells everyone what we "really" think.

                    5. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

                      Oh, fuck off, Jeff. Talk about projection. That's part of your modus operandi.

                    6. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

                      You and your buddy's posts have told us what you think for years, jeff.

                  2. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

                    Is Congress in charge of the Executive branch or the President? Why does the President need Congress's permission, when he is head of a separate and equal branch, to conduct his branch in accordance with the powers granted him in the Constitution? Oh, right it's Lyingjeffy, he won't have an answer for that.

                    1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

                      I am all for the president firing all of them and keeping the departments open in name only. Seems perfectly consistent with the Constitution, not the president having to ask for congresses approval to fire people that work for him per the Constitution. Fuck, I knew Lyingjeffy was a leftist but this is pure retard level lefty.

                    2. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

                      Also, I really wonder what Congress can do, if the President, at the end of the fiscal year returned the money they allocated and said, "here, you can have it back, I didn't need to spend this much". I would love to see how the courts would view this.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      Where do you think the bureaucracy comes from? It comes from CONGRESS passing a law, with the President's signature (most of the time), establishing said bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is not there to serve the will of the President. The bureaucracy is there to enact the law passed by Congress, and the President is supposed to MANAGE the bureaucracy in a good-faith implementation of this law.
                      The bureaucracy is not the King's Courtiers.

                      If the President just fires an entire department, that was charged with implementing a specific law, then the President is failing in his job to faithfully execute the laws. It is the President who would be acting unconstitutionally in this case. If the President wishes to propose a different way to implement a specific law, then fine. If the President wants to argue to Congress that the law should be repealed, fine. If the President wants to staff the department to implement the barest-bones version of the law, then fine. But not to get rid of it entirely. He doesn't and shouldn't have the authority to do that while the law authorizing that department still exists.

                    4. Marshal   5 months ago

                      If the President wishes to propose a different way to implement a specific law, then fine. If the President wants to argue to Congress that the law should be repealed, fine.

                      And yet Obama did not do this when he announced he would not be enforcing immigration law he didn't like. Revealingly this was fully supported both by jeffsarc and the other leftists. This tells us jeffey's assertion about how the executive and bureaucracy interact is wrong. He just made it up. It's just some blather he wishes were true because it would be helpful to stop Trump. When the next Dem is in office neither he nor anyone else will ever mention it again.

                      The bureaucracy is there to enact the law passed by Congress, and the President is supposed to MANAGE the bureaucracy in a good-faith implementation of this law.

                      The law doesn't say we have to spend money on trans propaganda in foreign countries, or support regime change in allied countries because they don't have trans-stripper story time in public kindergarden. So he's replacing the bureaucracy which prioritized spending for those initiatives. This is a perfectly reasonable management decision and I'm sure we all agree we're on different sides of it. The only difference is that while we think this is a policy choice subject to change you believe, or want us to believe anyway, that nothing can be changed from what was done before.

                      You're wrong, and nobody is ever going to fall for your nonsense.

                    5. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

                      If we applied Jeff's definition, that the President's job is only to manage the bureaucracy (I'm sure Madison is spinning in his grave right now) than the executive branch is not and cannot be a separate and equal branch, instead that would make it entirely a subordinate branch, not separate from the legislative branch. This defies 200 years of Constitutional law, the idea that the President can only manage the bureaucracy, not actually dictate how it is ran. And that the actual power of enforcement is granted by the legislative branch to an unelected bureaucracy. This in no way is how the branches have ever been ran, because the legislative branch passes laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the president is in charge of the executive branch, not the legislative branch and does not require permission from the legislative branch to manage the executive branch as he/she sees it. Fuck, even Wilson and FDR would tell Jeffy to go fuck himself if they had heard his interpretation of the separation of powers.

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      Oh here we go, the inevitable whataboutism. WHATABOUTOBAMA??? This is Marshal's go-to tactic when he cannot address the argument at hand.

                      You are referring to Obama's DACA program? First, while I support the general goals of the DACA program - just like I support the general goal of cutting government waste - I never supported Obama's use of an executive order to establish DACA. But, EVEN IF I did, the argument that I present now still stands on its own merit.

                      He just made it up.

                      If my argument is such a flimsy argument, why can't you refute it without appealing to lame whataboutisms? This is you just calling me names rather than arguing the substance of the matter.

                      The law doesn't say we have to spend money on trans propaganda in foreign countries

                      No, but the law grants the executive branch the discretion to do so if it wishes. That is the fault of Congress for writing vague laws. Incidentally, Trump is taking advantage of the very same type of vagueness when he declared a 'national emergency' in order to rationalize sending the military to the border.

                      I'm not objecting to changing how a law is implemented. I'm objecting to outright ignoring laws and closing whole departments that are charged with implementing a law.

                    7. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      If we applied Jeff's definition, that the President's job is only to manage the bureaucracy (I'm sure Madison is spinning in his grave right now)

                      Federalist 48, written by Madison:

                      But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions. The legislative department derives a superiority in our governments from other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with the greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the encroachments which it makes on the co-ordinate departments. It is not unfrequently a question of real nicety in legislative bodies, whether the operation of a particular measure will, or will not, extend beyond the legislative sphere. On the other side, the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass, and being more simple in its nature, and the judiciary being described by landmarks still less uncertain, projects of usurpation by either of these departments would immediately betray and defeat themselves.

                      tl;dr: Madison viewed Congress, as the legislative body, as the superior branch of government with fewer restrictions on its powers, and the other two branches of government as being narrower in scope and having more restrictions on what they can do.

                      the President can only manage the bureaucracy, not actually dictate how it is ran

                      The president can dictate how it is run - consistent with the laws that he is charged with executing. If the President wants to hire a staff of 20 or a staff of 200, he is free to do either, so long as the laws are executed.

                    8. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      But, hey, let's listen to your theory of how all this is supposed to work.

                      Example:
                      Congress passes a law establishing the Department of Lollipops that is supposed to hand out a lollipop to every citizen.
                      The President vetoes it but Congress approves it over his veto.
                      So the President now has to execute this law, right? What if the President simply refuses? He refuses to establish the department, he refuses to buy the lollipops, he refuses to do anything at all to implement this law.

                      Is this a legitimate exercise of the President's powers?

                    9. Marshal   5 months ago

                      WHATABOUTOBAMA??? This is Marshal's go-to tactic when he cannot address the argument at hand.

                      It's revealing jeffey needs to pretend testing whether his assertions are true is somehow illegitimate. Naturally we all understand why left wingers prefer a world where they can simply assert whatever they wish and it must be accepted. They even made up a fancy name for it. But all their claiming whataboutism means is that what they're trying to insist is illegitimate is in fact standard practice.

                      This is you just calling me names rather than arguing the substance of the matter.

                      I can't tell what this is supposed to be a reference to. Is it his own word whataboutism or is he drunk again? Can't tell.

                      No, but the law grants the executive branch the discretion to do so if it wishes.

                      Right. Weirdly your conclusion is that even though the executive branch no longer wishes to they are somehow still required to do so.

                      I'm objecting to outright ignoring laws and closing whole departments that are charged with implementing a law.

                      The only two whole departments closed are USAID which was established by executive order and the CFPB which the legislation removed from their own authority. So none of your rants apply to any actual events under discussion. If you were serious instead of just supporting the team however you can that would matter to you.

                    10. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      It's revealing that you cannot argue against what I wrote, instead you just call me names.

                      Naturally we all understand why left wingers prefer a world where they can simply assert whatever they wish and it must be accepted.

                      This is you and your projection. YOU are asserting what everyone else believes and YOU are demanding that it must be accepted as truth. That is YOU.

                      You are referring to Obama's DACA program? First, while I support the general goals of the DACA program - just like I support the general goal of cutting government waste - I never supported Obama's use of an executive order to establish DACA. But, EVEN IF I did, the argument that I present now still stands on its own merit.

                      Funny how you didn't address this part of my response. It is because you can't. You just want to call me names.

                      Weirdly your conclusion is that even though the executive branch no longer wishes to they are somehow still required to do so.

                      Gee that is weird, because it is not what I said. I said that the law permits the executive branch discretion to fund trans operas or whatever, not that they are required to.

                      The only two whole departments closed are USAID which was established by executive order

                      False - USAID was established by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The executive order represented implementing this law.

                      and the CFPB which the legislation removed from their own authority.

                      What are you even talking about here? Are you trying to read minds again?

                  3. Marshal   5 months ago

                    This is a lie

                    This is where Marshal reads everyone's minds and tells everyone what we "really" think.

                    It's actually pretty easy to tell when people lie, you just compare assertions to known facts. But I'm stuck on "telling everyone what they really think" and "mind reading". Is this wrong? Because I see a lot of left wingers including jeffsarc claiming others are racist, is that mind reading?

                    So to summarize the jeffsarc rule it's ok when left wingers do it. That pretty much sums up every standard of theirs doesn't it?

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      Marshal's "known facts" are the voices in his head. Note that he rarely, if ever, provides citations to back up his "known facts".

                    2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

                      You lying fuck. He cites all the time.

                2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

                  Go back and reread Article II, dip.

                3. Spiritus Mundi   5 months ago

                  The legislative branch decides how much to spend, the executive branch how it is spent. That is how our government is structured. The only time congress states how money is supposed to be spent is via earmarks, which make up less than 2% of the budget.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)

                4. DesigNate   5 months ago

                  Isn’t the Executive, being a coequal branch of the government, supposed to tell Congress to fuck off if they tell it to spend money on stupid shit that is unconstitutional?

              4. damikesc   5 months ago

                "Troll Mac is trolling yet again. I'm standing up for an orderly and fair process"

                Where was the '"fair process" that led giving millions to media outlets? It was not specifically laid out in any legislation. It was a decision of that agency. How about all of the DEI bullshit? Can you cite the legislation authorizing all of that money being spent globally?

              5. Marshal   5 months ago

                What are you in favor of? Should Trump/Musk have the unchecked authority to cut any spending at all that he doesn't like?

                It seems fairly obvious Trump and through him Musk are empowered to organize the Executive Department however they think it will best function. It's so obvious it's kind of funny left wingers are reduced to arguing they don't.

                Carry on - I need more laughter.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                  It seems fairly obvious Trump and through him Musk are empowered to organize the Executive Department however they think it will best function

                  ...consistent with faithfully executing the laws that he is charged to execute.

                  1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

                    Yes. It's you and your crooked DNC pet judges that seem to have a problem with that.

                    Boy are you going to squeal when congress starts to impeach them.

                  2. Marshal   5 months ago

                    ...consistent with faithfully executing the laws that he is charged to execute.

                    Well I'm touched by your concern. But since I'm thorough let's test your commitment:

                    When Dems controlled the bureaucracy the DOE took it upon themselves to change enforcement of Title IX which states in full:

                    No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

                    The DOE sent every institution of higher learning what is known as a Dear Colleague Letter outlining their enforcement plans. There were numerous features but to quickly summarize the DCL demanded schools set up sexual harassment enforcement organizations and stack the deck against the accused through biased training and the complete removal of reasonable investigation processes and any civil rights protections for the accused. The training was so biased it detached the actual enforcement from common meanings of words, for example people were subject to investigation merely for criticizing women on the theory that women have historically been criticized more and therefore this constituted "harassment".

                    Obviously the words of Title IX included above include no reference to sexual harassment at all. So how did the bureaucracy come to have the authority to force others to establish this enforcement mechanism? Certainly they did not go back to the legislature as your rather blasé description above would suggest is appropriate. So naturally given your understanding of the correct process you outline above you opposed this action, right?

                    Except that's not right. In fact when questioned on this before you said it is necessary for the bureaucracy, that is the executive branch, to act. Can you explain how this fits in to your theory? Be sure to differentiate between Dem and Rep executives since we know your more thorough process description will have different rules for each.

                  3. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                    Because Title IX is so vague and broad, it leaves a LOT of discretion up to the executive to decide how to implement it. So some interpret Title IX minimally, and apply it minimally; others interpret Title IX maximally, and apply it maximally. The problem here isn't the bureaucracy per se, the problem here is the power that the law, written by Congress, grants the executive to interpret such a vague law. And besides, it was not "the bureaucracy" that did all of this on its own volition, the bureaucracy did this because the Secretary of Education - appointed by the president - instructed it to.

                    If the Secretary of Education had said "we will not enforce Title IX at all", then that would be a real problem because they do have to do something to enforce it.

                    1. Marshal   5 months ago

                      Because Title IX is so vague and broad,

                      This is a lie. It isn't vague, it simply does not include what left wingers wish it did. But even so if it were vague following the same description you used before their recourse would be to get the legislature to change the law just as you demand of Trump. Title IX authorizes them to prevent discrimination in education, it does not allow them to micro-dictate a sex-based quasi-judicial policing institution and no libertarian would ever support this.

                      And that's the key everyone recognizes: you always have an excuse for the left and a condemnation for the right. And further you use double standards to justify both.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      lol you're now reduced to trying to justify how a vague law really isn't vague.

                      No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

                      What exactly does "any education program" mean? Does it mean only the academic side of a university? What about extra-curricular activities? What about student organizations, which are organized under the university aegis? What about athletics?

                      What does it mean precisely to be "denied the benefits" of an education program? Does it mean purely not being able to attend class? What about not being allowed to join the student organization of one's choice? What about athletes who are told they can't join the team of their choice even if qualified? Does "benefits" mean just the end result of getting a degree, or does it mean every single university experience that a college student may conceivably wish to pursue?

                      If you do not think that is vague, then I must conclude instead that you think only YOUR preferred meaning is the ONLY valid meaning that the law must have, and that everyone else trying to interpret it is absolutely wrong because they disagree with you. Is that what you mean?

                      "Excuse for the left"? I did not defend the kangaroo courts. I simply stated that, because the law was vague, it enabled them to do that. YOU are the one who insists on double standards: whatever the right does is done with good intentions, but whatever the left does is done with bad intentions.

                    3. Marshal   5 months ago

                      Interestingly none of these supposed vagaries has anything to do with sexual harassment. Is the DOE authorized to set up an actual police department because TITLE IX does not mention murder and thus is "vague"?

                      These people are ridiculous and always grasping at straws. With them the only thing that matters is Team Red or Team Blue.

                      I did not defend the kangaroo courts.

                      Of course you did. You minimized what they've done trying to pass it off as a few bad outcomes. In reality it was a corrupt process punitive from the very start. That's why even though this is a much bigger usurpation than anything Trump has ever done you've never criticized any left winger for it even when Biden reinstated the original rules over the modest reforms Devos implemented.

                      YOU are the one who insists on double standards: whatever the right does is done with good intentions, but whatever the left does is done with bad intentions.

                      You're just making shit up again, it's not like you have any integrity to stop you.

                  4. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                    Except that's not right. In fact when questioned on this before you said it is necessary for the bureaucracy, that is the executive branch, to act.

                    Cite please?

          4. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

            Seems like a lot of squealing.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

              Well, Jeffy does seem to squeal like a piggy.

          5. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

            Step 1: Find spending you don't like that doesn't go toward protecting individual rights.
            Step 2: Redefine Properly identify that spending to be "waste" or "graft", and try to cut it

            Fixed your bullshit for you.

          6. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

            "We all understand your", "So what your really saying is", "if I understand you correctly"

            Chemjeff speak for "I'm going to start making things up".

            Also, there's no "We" here, fatboy. Everyone hates you and thinks you're an instinctual and consummate liar.

            1. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

              One of the many different ways Lying Jeffy is dishonest.

              1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

                And a sophist shitweasel.

          7. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

            Shorter Pedo Jeffy, “don’t you dare cut one red cent of democrat spending. Every bit of it is precious to me”.

    2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      So sorry that this is happening to you, Jeffy.

      In the wake of losing your USAID funding what's going to happen to the fifty-center factory?
      Have they announced layoffs yet?
      Is your posting budget cut?

      Thoughts and prayers.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

        How do you think the federal workforce should be trimmed? What kind of process or procedure should be followed?

        1. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

          you're such a radical individualist lol

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

            I'm not an anarchist. Are you?

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

              Yeah, we know, fat boy--you're mad that Trump's hurting your lefty boos, so now you're trying the same sophist dialectic to undermine it because debating nonsense is your specialty.

              1. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

                Dismantling USAID is anarchy! lol

                God you liberals are hilarious. you really are

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                  I didn't claim dismantling USAID by itself represented "anarchy". You're just resorting to mockery instead of addressing the substance of my argument.

                  1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                    Your argument doesn't have any substance. You just don't want to see the cuts happen and are attempting your typical lame litigating of what's going on.

                  2. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

                    “substance”

                    You misspelled bullshit.

            2. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

              Cutting 3% of government employess is aNaRChY!
              listen to yourself.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                I am not talking about this specific decision. I am referring more to the general ethos. I don't see a lot of concern for how these changes are occurring. Instead I see a lot of cheering for cutting government by any means necessary. It is that ethos that sparked my anarchy comment.

                Cutting 200,000 government employees may be a good idea, or it may be a bad idea, depending on who they are or how it's done. But I don't see anyone around here raising that concern. Instead all I see it "I don't care who it is, cut some more". Is that your position?

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                  Keep your "thought experiments" to yourself, fat boy. They aren't worth consideration.

                2. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

                  The general ethos of drastically slashing the size of the federal government? Are you new here? Yes. yes cut everything to the bone. Oh no the 6900 (good lord 6900!) employees at USAID what will we do without them? We didnt do a line by line review of each person what if someone important was let go?

                  you're either for Leviathan or no. I am not.

                3. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

                  “I am referring more to the general ethos.”

                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHABAHAHABAHABABABABHAHAHAHAHAHA!

                4. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

                  I am referring more to the general ethos.

                  What do you think is the general ethos behind "fuck you, cut spending"?

            3. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

              Trimming out useless and authoritarian departments is not anarchism.

            4. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

              No, you’re not an anarchist, you’re a deep state Democrat, Jeffy, who loves to claim he’s one of the One True Libertarians.

        2. Uncle Jay   5 months ago

          When it becomes inefficient, corrupt or no longer useful to the American people.
          FEMA.
          EPA.
          Commerce Department.
          Department of Education.
          These four being eliminated would be a great start.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

            When it becomes inefficient, corrupt or no longer useful to the American people.

            Who should make that determination?

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

              Anyone who isn't on your side.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                You're not a big fan of democracy, are you?

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                  You certainly aren't. Trump was duly elected for this very purpose, his approval ratings are the highest they've ever been, and the bureaucracy is not an elected branch of government. You seem to think "democracy" means "the left gets to always do what it wants."

                  Thanks for admitting that you're a left-wing syndicalist, not an actual believer in democracy.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                    You didn't answer my question. Trump was elected as president, not as dictator. He represents one of three branches of government. Shouldn't the other two branches have a say as well about how government funding is established?

                    Who established the bureaucracy? It was Congress. Shouldn't Congress have a say in this as well?

                    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                      Your question was stupid circular reasoning and got the answer it deserved.

                      The Chief Executive releasing a bunch of Executive Branch employees is not dictatorship. Reducing the size of government is not dictatorship. And all your whining about "these people get a say, too!" doesn't change that.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                      That you refer to other people demanding a say in these decisions, especially people who are *entitled* to have a say, like Congress, as "whining" just proves what I said. Yes, you do think Trump should have near unlimited authority to cut whatever spending he wants regardless of what Congress or the courts think. And then you try to gaslight us all into thinking that it's not 'dictatorship'.

                    3. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

                      Lying Jeffy wants to create a soviet to review what gets cut.

                    4. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

                      "Cutting government is dictatorship!"--chemtard radical deathfat

                    5. sarcasmic   5 months ago

                      The Chief Executive releasing a bunch of Executive Branch employees is not dictatorship. Reducing the size of government is not dictatorship.

                      The problem here is how, not what. The president isn't supposed to go around ignoring Congress and doing whatever he wants. No, the president is supposed to execute the will of the people through laws passed by Congress. Doesn't matter if the law is stupid or wasteful, that's not the president's function.

                      Gutting the federal government by refusing to enforce or follow the law is the wrong way to go about it. We are a nation of laws, not of men.

                      To change the government we need to change the laws.

                    6. Marshal   5 months ago

                      the president is supposed to execute the will of the people through laws passed by Congress. Doesn't matter if the law is stupid or wasteful, that's not the president's function.

                      - Statement Released by Libertarians for Waste

                      The jeffsarcs know if the left can require all changes to first occur in congress they can return to the previous "normal" of eternally increasing spending. That's why they're so insistent.

                      In truth though there is no law requiring that we spend $75,000 to run a tranny play in Serbia, so choosing not to do so does not violate any law. On top of that there are already bills in front of congress to enact the changes Trump and Musk have identified, after which the jeffsarcs will move on to their next bureaucratic blocking (as soon as the NYT identifies it for them).

                    7. sarcasmic   5 months ago

                      Shorter Marshal: If you don't want to do it my way then you don't want it to be done at all!

                      I'm sure there's a name for that fallacy but I'm not going to bother looking it up.

                    8. Marshal   5 months ago

                      Shorter Marshal: If you don't want to do it my way then you don't want it to be done at all!

                      It's strange comment since you're the one demanding Trump do it your way, but then you're not much of a thinker are you.

                    9. sarcasmic   5 months ago

                      The difference is that I'm not claiming you don't want to cut government because I want it done legislatively, while you're claiming I don't want to cut government at all because I question Trump's methods.

                      But you're not much of a thinker. All you do is emote.

                    10. Marshal   5 months ago

                      you're claiming I don't want to cut government at all because I question Trump's methods.

                      I claim that because your objections don't make sense, they are ill-informed talking points created for the completely ignorant by those whose only goal is stopping any deviation from the historical spending growth. By contrast if you reached your conclusions naturally you wouldn't have arrived at 'the Executive can't organize the Executive Department, the Legislature has to do it".

                      You're either the dumbest motherfucker alive or you adopted this obviously stupid position because even though you knew the reasoning was wrong because you'll do anything to stop Trump from cutting government. I choose to be generous because that's the kind of guy I am.

                    11. See.More   5 months ago

                      [deleted]

                    12. DesigNate   5 months ago

                      “The president isn't supposed to go around ignoring Congress and doing whatever he wants.”

                      Congress has fuck all to say about how the executive runs the executive branch save for what is laid out explicitly in the constitution.

                    13. Outlaw Josey Wales   5 months ago

                      Congress has had the ability to oversee and 'have a say' in all of these departments for multiple administrations. They have not done their job. As much as you want to tell us it is strictly their job it is also clear they have not, and have no real interest in, doing said job.

                      A perfect analogy for what is going on is the worker who is fucking off at work, not doing their job and not caring because he/she is collecting their pay each week. A new boss comes in and takes a hard look at performance and calls the employee to the carpet. Said employee claims he doesn't understand, no one told him/her they weren't doing their job and then promise, from now on, to do better

                      This is Congress' moment to do better. To align themselves with what is going on and dig deep to fix what is clearly waste, graft and abuse. The people who elected them would love to have them participate, jump in and ally themselves with this new policy. Instead, like you Jeff, they claim it is all illegit because the process isn't right. Well, the old process didn't work either.

                      Time for a change.

                2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

                  You’re not a fan of democracy there, Jeffy, you seem to prefer the unelected bureaucracy. Don’t lie to us.

                3. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

                  "Elections have consequences, and I won."

                  1. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

                    That Trump is such a fascist, it figures he would say something like that. Oh, wait.

            2. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

              Trump.

        3. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

          Re-watch the clip of Javier Millei if you want a refresher, fat boy.

        4. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

          Haven't you pretended to be an Objectivist before, jeff? You've read The Nature of Government, no?

          How about eliminate any spending, or program, or govt employee that isn't explicitly for the military, police, courts, and the protection of individual rights ?

        5. damikesc   5 months ago

          "How do you think the federal workforce should be trimmed? What kind of process or procedure should be followed?"

          Fire 9 out of 10.

          If a department cannot do its "job", close the department.

          The government does far more than it has any right or ability to do. What expertise do you think will be lost? Nobody has ever confused the bureaucracy with being hyper competent...at anything.

          1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

            Where in the Constitution, I'm posting this because I won't unmute a lying sack of shit like Jeffy, does it give Congress or the Executive branch the power to tax people and use that money to fund DEI and LGBTQxcccyz$ in foreign countries? If it isn't in the Constitution we shouldn't be spending money on it period. Why does he not understand this? Oh because he's a lying sack of leftist shit. I almost forgot for a second, his handle fooled me and his claims to be libertarian also fooled me for about a millisecond.

            1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

              Also, Lyingjeffy actually believes that Congress can dictate the size of a completely separate branch, and how it operates, simply by passing a law. And the President can't do anything about it. Nothing says separate but equal like one branch being able to completely dictate how many people work for another branch, how they are hired and fired, and how the head of the other branch has no power to manage them. That's completely separate but equal. Fucking moron.

        6. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

          I'd start with:

          * an immediate hiring freeze
          * release anyone on probationary status
          * offer a decent, but not golden, package to induce voluntary departures
          * complete an employee rack-and-stack, with a goal of dismissing the remaining 10% lowest performing employees
          * complete a management rack-and-stack, with a goal of dismissing the lowest performing 20% of managerial staff

          During the rack-and-stack periods, agencies could try to justify their head counts, but don't bet on keeping everyone.

          Repeat annually.

          1. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

            Milei in Argentina established a rule that an agency could hire whoever they want but they have to let 2 people go for each hire.

            Simple. Effective. Gives actual good managers a real excuse to get rid of the dead weight. it's genius.

        7. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

          "How do you think the federal workforce should be trimmed? What kind of process or procedure should be followed?"

          The exact way they are doing it right now, except harder, fascist. I want to hear the grifters scream in rage.

          1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

            Fire everyone not in uniform, then fire 2/3 of those in uniform O-6 and above. Eliminate all flag billets that aren't brigade or above command and aren't critical commands such as TRADOC. If your billet is some tough feely bullshit that doesn't assist in killing our enemies in some form, your getting ROAD, don't let the door hit you on your ass as you leave. Thank you for your service but we don't need it anymore (and just so everyone understands all commissions and warrants are for life, so if we need to expand the military and need more flag officers, they can be recalled, even involuntarily, it's part of the deal for taking a commission or a warrant).

            1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

              *chef's kiss*

        8. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

          Trump is doing a good job so far. Let’s see where that takes us. Your concern trolling certainly augers well.

    3. Uncle Jay   5 months ago

      When the government takes all your property, enslaves you and makes our republic into a Stalinist slave state.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

        Let me know if/when that happens.

        1. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

          According to your side, it's happening right now, under the orange-fuhrer.

          1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

            They're all pissed off that Orange Hitler can't even hitler properly. What kind of competent authoritarian government shrinks itself?

            1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

              The funniest thing about this is dictators usually grow the size of the bureaucracy not shrink it (it's hard to control everything without a bureaucracy). In fact Nazi Germany increased the size of the, already substantial, German Bureaucracy by 300% in the first three years in office. Fuck, even Napoleon, who was rather infamous as a micromanager, grew the French bureaucracy (and it hasn't stopped growing since). It's what dictators do. You can't run a dictatorship without a large bureaucracy. If Trump truly was a fascist, he wouldn't be shrinking the size of the bureaucracy, he would be growing it, thus bringing more of every day life under his control. Hitler, Mussolini and Franco all grew their bureaucracies as one of their first acts upon assuming power. So did dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. Both Ba'athist Syria and Iraq had huge bureaucracies, as did Qadafi Libya. I cannot think of a true dictatorship that ever purposely tried to shrink the bureaucracy. They simply don't exist.

        2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

          Let me know if/when that happens.

          2020 - 2024.

    4. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

      Just look at Lying Jeffy go.

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        The USAID money is running out and he needs to make as many posts as he can before they lay him off.

    5. Moonrocks   5 months ago

      How will we survive without millions of bureaucrats regulating every minute aspect of our lives!?

      --chemjeff radical individualist

    6. DesigNate   5 months ago

      Half the things the federal government does are flatly unconstitutional and should be stopped with extreme prejudice and speed. If Chase Oliver had somehow won, he would have creamed his pants to be doing this.

      I bet you hate Milei too.

  46. MollyGodiva   5 months ago

    Firing people without regards to what their job is and if the department will be able to function afterwards is bad management. Also this mass firing is illegal.

    1. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

      Cite?

      1. Michael Ejercito   5 months ago

        How is this mass firing illegal?

    2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      How is it illegal, Tony? Companies eliminate departments and do layoffs all the time.
      Why is it suddenly the end of the world for you?
      Are you losing your budget?

      1. MollyGodiva   5 months ago

        https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-315/subpart-H

        There is no provision for firing probationary employees because of "We just felt like it."

        They are also violating the law in respect to employees who are under probation in their current job but have served more than a year in another federal job.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

          You do realize that their probationary status is what makes them easy to let go in a union shop like the federal government, right, Molly?

        2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

          What do you think probationary means tony?

        3. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

          "There is no provision for firing probationary employees because of "We just felt like it."

          Tell us you've never held a real job without telling us you've never held a real job. That's literally what probationary status means, you shiftless retard.

          1. MollyGodiva   5 months ago

            The Federal Government is not like private companies. The workers have civil service protections by law.

            1. Truthfulness   5 months ago

              Not at all. They have no more privileges than any employee from other companies.

              Point to the Constitution where it says otherwise.

        4. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

          Who is in charge of the Executive branch again? Where in the Constitution does it say the President can't fire members of the Executive Branch? Can federal law ever supersede or abridge the Constitution? You're a fucking moron.

    3. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

      Cite gov functioning in any manner considered well.

    4. sarcasmic   5 months ago

      The firings are not permanent. They're creating job openings to be filled by loyalists who will do Trump's bidding without any regard for the law or the Constitution. And it's ok because Deep State and all that.

      1. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

        Poor sarc.

      2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

        Poor Sarc, he thinks everyone operates like the uniparty assholes he favors.

      3. Spiritus Mundi   5 months ago

        There is a hiring freeze and and EO that says, when lifted, four jobs have to be destroyed for every new hire. Not sure how your strawman is ever going to grow legs and walk.

        1. sarcasmic   5 months ago

          Vance accidentally admitted it.

          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14348105/jd-vance-doge-trump-administration.html

          'The most important thing it's going to do, I don't even think it's the cost savings,' Vance told Sean Hannity in the interview.

          'It's making the bureaucracy responsive to elected president,' the vice president continued.

          'If you look at okay, the president issues an executive order saying we're not going to give grants to organizations that do X, Y and Z and the bureaucracy just does not respond, DOGE has identified grants that were going to be made in violation of an executive order and stop them before the money is wired,' Vance claimed.

          He argued it 'makes the people's government responsive to the people's president.'

          In other words, fill the bureaucracy with loyalists who will execute the will of the president, no matter what the law or the Constitution says about it.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

            Of for fuck’s sake, you fucking retard. That’s not at all what Vance said in the least, asshole. Right now, the unelected bureaucrats think they have to answer to nobody. They’re supposed to answer to the head of the executive branch, you know, the branch to which they work for, dork.

            What the fuck are you, a libertarian for unaccountable government?

            1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

              "That’s not at all what Vance said in the least, asshole"

              Reading comprehension isn't a Sarcasmic superpower either.

              1. Spiritus Mundi   5 months ago

                Now you've done it. You used an ad hominen.*

                *ML didn't really use an ad hominen, but sarc doesn't know what that means and thinks it means an insult.

                1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

                  Someone should create a vodka bottle with the definition written on the label.

          2. DesigNate   5 months ago

            Unless I missed it, he never said anything about replacing the people being fired…

      4. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        You are one stupid, drunk, raving bitch.

        Seriously, fuck off. You’re a pathetic punchline to a lame joke.

    5. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      No, it's not illegal, no matter how much you want to parrot it otherwise. And thanks for confirming that you're one of those parasites that actually needed to be canned.

    6. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

      Do you buy straw by the ton or truckload, slimy pile of lying lefty shit?

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

        I think Molly borrowed straw from Sarc.

        1. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

          God knows he has plenty to go around.

    7. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

      Trust me, none of these departments will "fail to function" after losing less than 5% of their employees lol

      You are a victim.

      1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

        Better yet, she thinks the head of the Executive Branch not only can't fire members of the Executive branch without permission from the completely separate legislative branch, she also believes the head of executive branch can even be forbidden (or his appointed surrogates) from knowing exactly what members of the executive branch are doing and spending money on. And she thinks this is defending democracy. Meant for your other remark.

    8. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

      The government cannot fire it's own workers is a hell of a take.

      1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

        See my above comment.

        1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

          And Sarc is dead set against reducing the federal workforce. He really is the One True Libertarian.

    9. damikesc   5 months ago

      Mass firing is not remotely illegal and I could not potentially care less about "what their job" is. Their job should not be funded by me.

    10. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

      Hey moron, where in the Constitution does it say the head of the Executive branch needs permission to fire members of the Executive branch? Also, where does the Constitution allow the government to spend money without being answerable to the elected head of the Executive Branch? Also, do you think Congressional legislation can abridge or supersede the authorities granted in the Constitution? What is the supreme law of the land? Huh idiot?

    11. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

      Illegal? Cite the law that say so.

  47. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

    Elon Musk: For a second, I thought this was parody

    1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

      Democrats are not capable of learning. They really think they just didn't brag enough about what they did. They are doing this daily.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        They’re soulless, unclean things. I’ve used that phrase to refer to the, here for over a decade. Originally, other commenters thought I took things too far. Apparently most of the commentariat has caught up.

        Democrats have to go.

  48. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

    Bessent answered, “Well, Laura, look, China is the most imbalanced, unbalanced country in the history of the world and President Trump, during his first term, alerted the American people to that and has taken the steps. But now, we can see, are your friends taking advantage of you? Are they your friends if they’re taking advantage of you? We have a gigantic trade deficit with the Europeans, and if President Trump is talking about reciprocal tariffs, what is wrong with reciprocal tariffs? If you have a tariff, we’re going to put in the same level. If you take it to zero, we’ll take it to zero.”

    The horror. I'm sure Boehm will write about this.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      Trump said the same thing in his first term--he was fine with no tariffs at all, as long as Europe, China, and other countries did the same. There's no reason to have low tariffs, or no tariffs, while these countries to put their thumbs on their own scale. And there's certainly nothing wrong with using a stick in the form of tariff increases if it's related to national security concerns.

      1. sarcasmic   5 months ago

        There's no reason to have low tariffs, or no tariffs, while these countries to put their thumbs on their own scale.

        Sure there is. It's called 'comparative advantage.' Besides, there's no reason to believe that Trump wants no tariffs at all. He's been praising tariffs for over forty years. He honestly believes that import taxes make us wealthier by protecting businesses from competition. He's said that many, many times. So how can tariffs protect businesses while also being a negotiating tool that will be dropped when the other party gives in to demands? They can't. It's one or the other. And I believe he wants the former, not the latter.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

          Sorry, there's no "comparative advantage" when it's not actually reciprocal.

          1. sarcasmic   5 months ago

            *sigh*

            Every economist in the world disagrees, but what do they know?

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

              My stock in "experts" expired around April 2020.

              1. sarcasmic   5 months ago

                Fauci and company lying during the pandemic doesn't invalidate two and a half centuries of economic study. Talk about non sequitur.

                1. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

                  Does this mean you accept that Fauci and company lied now? Or is this just a throw-away line that you will deny having said tomorrow?

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

                    Given his history, I’d wager on the latter.

                    1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

                      Sarc has zero credibility.

                      Case closed.

                  2. Spiritus Mundi   5 months ago

                    Facts changed.

            2. damikesc   5 months ago

              Stuff would be hella cheap in a country where nobody has a job.

              Sounds like a plan.

            3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

              Oh bullshit. Plenty of economists disagree you lying drunk retarded bitch.

          2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

            Sarc heard the term comparative advantage and stopped all thinking or curiosity at that point. Economists from every school have pointed out the flaws of the simplified model first introduced in the 1860s. For example the models doesn't even admit there are different political and regulatory differences between countries. It just assumes one producer is superior to another, ignoring all cost delta for those producers. It is like learning about frictionless motion in physics and assuming you're Albert Einstein.

            There are many articles in the Austrian school and even the Keyenesian school pointing out the flaws of the simplistic assumptions when comparative advantage was introduced. Such as:

            https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijplur/v2y2011i4p421-429.html

            This is why I say sarc is sophomoric and ignorant in economics. He just accepts simplistic models for a complex system as truth. And will do non work in understanding the issues with his simple models.

            Another criticism from another school.

            https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/05/no_the_public_d.html

            So as long as you assume an ideal market with no regulatory delta, political issues, costs from a welfare state, etc... comparative advantage works.

            But that's not the real world.

            Sarcs chosen ignorance on regulatory disadvantages is what props up his religious like belief in economic simple models.

            He isn't intelligent or read enough to be more than a trained seal yelling bumper stickers.

            Ironically those yelling loudest about comparative advantage are globalists like the WTO and WEF to justify their actions.

            https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl152_e.htm

            1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

              Here is a paper even debunking Ricardo's introduction of comparative advantage.

              https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-history-of-economic-thought/article/abs/overcoming-absolute-and-comparative-advantage-a-reappraisal-of-the-relative-cheapness-of-foreign-commodities-as-the-basis-of-international-trade/87D17DABA90FCF909E0F73EC230D73E8

              And just for fun, an article showing the left parroting the comparative advantage tagline to defend their belief in offshoring.

              https://developingeconomics.org/2017/04/23/200-years-of-ricardian-trade-theory-how-is-this-still-a-thing/

              Sarc is just repeating bumper stickers with zero understanding or intelligence to understand the bumper sticker.

              1. sarcasmic   5 months ago

                Obfuscation is the act of making something unintelligible. It comes from the Latin word obfuscare which means "to darken or obscure." The point of obfuscation is to lie by making things unnecessarily complicated. Tony used to do that a lot. Now it is one of Jesse's favorite tactics. He deliberately complicates things that are not complicated in order to attack the person he is arguing with. In this case his argument is "Economics does not build on principles. No, it throws everything away and starts over. You didn't throw everything away and start over which means you're stupid, and whatever you say is wrong because you're stupid." Just another form of the go-to argument in these comments: the ad hominem.

                1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

                  Yes, you hamfistedly and incompetently try to obfuscate the discussion when you are losing.

                  Hint; you always lose. Probably because you are a broken, stupid, drunken loser.

                  Any instinct you have towards suicide, or any form of self harm, is the correct one.

              2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

                So let's watch sarcs simple bumper sticker justify slavery.

                Let's take the same stance as Ricardo's.

                Country A, Country B
                Assume all resources are equal price.
                Assume manufacturing loss is equal.

                Country A is a free market.
                Country B is a slave state.

                Country A has an economy that produces product X at 1 dollars a unit in labor. Country B is slave labor and has no labor cost.

                Given the assumptions of Ricardo, it is better to offshore production of X to the slave state as using cost as the efficiency metric, Country B is more efficient.

                What sarc doesn't get is his model is flawed.

                Efficiency can be defined as cost, man hours, material loss etc.

                To believe in the current WEF version of comparative advantage, one has to focus solely on labor cost. To pretend 1000 Chinese at slave labor workers is more efficient than 100 workers in factories. Even if the latter actually produces more units, has less production loss, etc.

                Sarc doesn't actually think about what he is saying. He merely repeats it.

                1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

                  He’s a stupid raving drunk. Whatever is left of his brain is hollowed out and filled with cheap booze, and shit.

        2. See.More   5 months ago

          [deleted]

  49. Uncle Jay   5 months ago

    "200,000 Layoffs."

    Sounds good to me.

    1. Dillinger   5 months ago

      ala lawyers at the bottom of the ocean joke ...

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

        Let’s do both! There are a lot of Marxist lawyers that should rightfully be executed. Throwing them into storage containers and dropping them to the bottom of the ocean sounds good to me.

  50. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

    Huh. How convenient.

    Tesla discrimination probe killed as Trump axes watchdog agency

    https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/06/trump-order-stops-tesla-discrimination-investigation/

    A federal investigation of potential workplace discrimination at Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc. has been halted after President Trump signed a Jan. 21 executive order that all but shut down the agency in charge of it, The Standard has learned.

    1. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

      The probe was lawfare.

      And federal discrimination probes into private companies are all unconstitutional anyway. They are used as a strongarm tactic against unfavorable companies.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

        Of course it is. Every legal action against Team Red is "lawfare". Every legal action against Team Blue is "serving justice".

        1. sarcasmic   5 months ago

          Everything is judged by who, not what.

          1. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

            Workplace discrimination investigations from the Feds are always holy and dispassionate.

            1. sarcasmic   5 months ago

              I'll take "Things no one ever said" for four hundred, Alex.

              1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

                You’ll take a quart of turpentine quality rotgut and pass out in a pool of your own piss and vomit. Oh, and I’m still waiting for your bitch ass to step up and come after like you promised during one of your drunken rants.

                Have you forgotten that? I sure as fuck haven’t.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

              Yup, that's a strawman that you just burned.

              We all know that if the shoe was on the other foot, and some Team Blue person (an unelected one at that!) tried to shut down an agency that was investigating his own companies, you would be having a cow about corruption and cronyism.

              1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

                That’s called snark, you humorless idiot.

                1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

                  Progs can't meme.

              2. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

                some Team Blue person (an unelected one at that!) tried to shut down an agency that was investigating his own companies, you would be having a cow

                Au contraire; If the agency was unconstitutional, or acting unconstitutionally, I would be cheering for this.

                1. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

                  Leftists always project.

            3. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

              Are you guys so stupid and blinkered that you DONT know the Biden admin was inflicting lawfare on Elon across all his companies? He had few investigations and federal suits until Biden. What do you think was happening there? Elon just started running his companies recklessly and illegally starting in 2020?

              You guys crack me up.

              1. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

                They are awfully stupid, but in this case they’re being dishonest.

                1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

                  turd is contagious.

                2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

                  And evil.

                  Some of the stuff Chemjeff says makes the hair on the back of my neck stand. You can almost smell sulphur reading it.

              2. Spiritus Mundi   5 months ago

                Not to mention a Dem judge in *checks notes* Biden's home state of Delaware denying Musk his board approved compensation package.

              3. Spiritus Mundi   5 months ago

                Elon just started running his companies recklessly and illegally starting in 2020?

                Really!? That is the same exact time Trump started commiting a bunch of felonies and process crimes! What are the odds?

              4. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

                https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/business/sec-musk-hearing/index.html

                A lawsuit by the SEC against Musk as Tesla CEO... from 2019

                https://www.cadwalader.com/resources/clients-friends-memos/delaware-chancery-court-finds-elon-musk-may-be-controlling-stockholder-of-tesla-motors

                Another lawsuit against Elon Musk, from 2018

                So he's been in legal trouble before. As I said, whenever someone from your team gets in trouble, you just define it as "lawfare". Maybe, just maybe, Elon Musk is not the saint you think he is.

                1. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

                  Should the SEC exist, jeff? Asking you as a true libertarian.

                2. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

                  I don’t recall anyone calling Elon a saint. So that was a lie.

          2. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

            Everything is judged by who, not what.

            Thanks for the concise statement of the chemsarc M.O.

          3. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

            everything is judged by who, not what.

            Remember when you defended Biden holding secret documents, while simultaneously attacking your orange nemesis?

          4. Marshal   5 months ago

            It's bizarre people whose entire comment history shows they only criticize people based on their team now pretend others are doing the same thing.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

              Marshal, it’s Jeffyworld.

        2. Dillinger   5 months ago

          fitting you're still in some red/blue universe everyone else left decades ago

        3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )   5 months ago

          A ‘discrimination prone’. Yeah, that sounds like, woke Democrat bullshit.

          Too bad, so sad Fatfuck.

    2. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

      Lying Jeffy supports fascism.

      1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        I've said that for two years now without hyperbole.

    3. DesigNate   5 months ago

      Where is that a federal power again?

  51. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

    Chicago-style gangster politics.

    https://archive.is/woOHH

    1. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

      Lying Jeffy unironically posts a link showing 11 different federal agencies were investigating Elon’s businesses under his team’s administration.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

        Tardjeff retarded fascist champions lawfare.

      2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

        Seriously, Jeff just posted a confession. Not a single one of those federal agencies were investigating Elon’s businesses before he started mouthing off to the Democrats.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

          Yes we know. It's "lawfare" when your team gets in trouble.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

            It certainly is when your team is resisted.

          2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

            Don't project. It's lawfare when it's lawfare, you fascist twit.

          3. Marshal   5 months ago

            And we know it never is when your team is weaponizing government. Meanwhile you pretend ending weaponized government is the problem.

            1. DesigNate   5 months ago

              Don’t be silly Marshall, he doesn’t have a team, just ask him.

    2. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

      Jeff, as a true-libertarian, which of those agencies investigating Musk should even exist?

      My answer is 2 out of 11.

    3. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      Yes, but not in the way you're intimating.

  52. Stupid Government Tricks   5 months ago

    I don't have much use for JP Morgan Chase. But his rant made me laugh. I worked for a 100-employee company which got bought out by a 30,000-employee company. I went from one 15 minute standup meeting a week to two, one hour meetings, separated by half an hour, every day. That's at least three hours wasted every day, and they were in the morning, my most productive time. You come away from three hours of meetings and your day may as well be over as far as productivity goes.

    The really funny part was that I ended up with two bosses, same level, both my direct bosses, who kept assigning me competing tasks. Once, one depended on some other project which was expected to finish in three weeks. When I asked what to do, I was told to just hang around and wait.

    Later I was told to stop fixing bugs I wasn't assigned, and when I found new bugs while researching other bugs, don't file bug reports for them.

    I despise bureaucrats. I spent a lot of that three weeks researching other opportunities, and they were all shocked when I gave notice.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      Sounds like a literal "Office Space" situation. Did you ever get scolded for using the wrong cover sheet on your TPS reports?

    2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

      I hope you at least got to smash the printer on your way out. 🙂

    3. Stupid Government Tricks   5 months ago

      I learned to read during the Zoom calls, muted myself, and turned off the video with the excuse that my lousy rural internet couldn't handle it. I think over the six months of it, I had to unmute myself once to answer a question. I got a lot of unauthorized ("hang around for three weeks") work done, and kept filing bug reports which they learned to ignore.

  53. Dillinger   5 months ago

    >>Around 100 people were dismissed at once via that call, with their video and speaking capabilities muted, and were told to leave the building within the hour.

    these people had since November to make plans and we owe them nothing.

  54. Dillinger   5 months ago

    >>Should we understand Trump's tariffs as symbolic? As foreign policy instruments? As executive whims?

    here's an idea. wait like the rest of us to find out & don't look like Foolish Eric in six months

  55. Dillinger   5 months ago

    >>Danielle Sassoon: "I understand my duty as a prosecutor to mean enforcing the law impartially, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment ...

    fuck you and your validly returned indictment Danielle Sassoon. was Adams' counsel permitted in the grand jury room?

    1. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

      "validly returned indictment "

      Duck-duck-go's AI assist thing came up with

      The phrase "indict a ham sandwich" was coined by Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge of New York, to illustrate how easily a grand jury can be influenced by prosecutors to issue indictments. It suggests that grand juries often act more as tools for prosecutors than as independent bodies protecting citizens' rights.

      1. Dillinger   5 months ago

        it's sick and wrong. and then Princess Prosecutor comes out hiding behind Scalia with her valid indictment me me me!

  56. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

    As of yesterday apparently DOGE is in the IRS building now.

    I can't wait to see what they find and the media freakout will be glorious.

    1. Dillinger   5 months ago

      putting the "Infernal" back in I

    2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

      “The suspense is terrible... I hope it'll last.”

    3. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

      This is going to be beautiful, because the only thing the majority of Americans hate more than foreign aid is the IRS.

      1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

        This is absolutely the best strategy, start with foreign aid, which has historically been really unpopular, especially among the working class, then move on to education, people are tired of teachers not doing their job, while our kids get dumber, and demanding more and more benefits, then move onto the IRS. Keep cranking up the hatred, so that when you get to the DoD and Medicare/Medicaid people are pissed off and already primed to expect massive graft and waste and fraud.

        1. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

          And the left is like the proverbial dog salivating to the bells for every step, so that by the time you get to the more important branches, people will be ignoring them, because they've wasted so much energy defending the indefensible.

          1. DesigNate   5 months ago

            See: every Jeff post for the last month for an example of this.

  57. Dillinger   5 months ago

    >>For those who care about the Forest Service

    fucking loved my Ranger Rick subscription

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   5 months ago

      Yogi and Boo Boo will have completely unfettered access to picnic baskets. Is that what Musk wants? Really?

    2. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

      Ha, me too!

  58. Dillinger   5 months ago

    >>Though I'm supportive of DOGE, there is a certain haphazard nature to these firings that leaves me wondering if they'll result in the desired outcome.

    go read your constitution and get back to us about the wondering

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      I don't think it's haphazard at all. They went after USAID right off the bat for a reason, and I'm sure it's because they figured out that it was the locus of the Deep State and lefty NGO spider web.

      1. Dillinger   5 months ago

        Mike Benz has been shouting it for a loooooong time.

      2. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

        This. And anyone paying attention should be able to see it.

      3. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   5 months ago

        Exactly. USAID protested the loudest for exactly that reason. By taking them out first, it makes everything they’re trying to do a bit easier. Note how the NGOs are bitching about funding and how the media seems in disarray without a central message.

      4. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

        Exactly. It's not like Trump and team thought they would probably win, oh about the time the assassin mostly missed if not after the first debate. Even if Nov 5 came as complete surprise, they've known they won for 2.5 months before getting inaugurated.

        They've had time to plan these actions out, time to dig up the legal basis for most of the moves, etc. Trump has been there before, and knows where to dig.

        1. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

          A lot of people that Trump hired for this have been working on this since 2023, and some since 2013. A good example is Mike Benz.

      5. mad.casual   5 months ago

        It's also rather superficially a redundant nail that's near entirely within the executive's purview to drive or pull. Even doing what it nominally does, it takes taxpayer dollars and disburses them to foreign entities and agents at the behest of the Executive.

        If Congress can pass a Ukraine Appropriations Act, A Supplemental Ukraine Appropriations Act, and An Emergency Supplemental Ukraine Appropriations Act... it can put up a bill for funding LGBTQIA Positivity for Haitians In Captivity and vote on it.

  59. Dillinger   5 months ago

    >>"It's stripping out, likely, a whole new generation of talent for our government," Max Stier, president of Partnership for Public Service

    we've got to do something to help keep our phoney-baloney jobs!

    1. Ajsloss   5 months ago

      "Oh no! Now who will sell oranges on the off-ramp?" - Homer Simpson

      1. Dillinger   5 months ago

        this place has been criminally low on Simpsons references lately

  60. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

    Remember when all the commies pooped their pants cause Milei was doing DOGE on steroids in Argentina and claimed they would all die of starvation and now Argentina as the first year of no inflation in decades and the economy is booming and housing is cheaper now?

    yeah i remember that.

    DOGE needs to step it up they are going to slow and using too light of a touch if you ask me.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      LOL, no shit. Compared to Captain Chainsaw, Trump's actions have been quite measured.

    2. Dillinger   5 months ago

      exactly.

    3. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

      Isn't it nice that the 'slow-down' folks use the term "chainsaw"; it is exactly what the doctor ordered.

    4. DesigNate   5 months ago

      Reason (and the true libertarians (tm)) were all bitching about him too.

      Funny that, don’t ya think?

  61. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

    LOL, JD Vance just called out the authoritarian Eurotrash right to their faces, including the limey Orwellian swamp directly. Nice of him to serve notice to these radical left autocracies that their "liberating tolerance" won't be indulged by the current administration.

    1. Dillinger   5 months ago

      the smug concern en masse was delicious.

    2. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

      Meanwhile the current leftist talking point is “Where is Vance even at?”

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   5 months ago

        There's a lot of folks in Europe who can tell them.

  62. Azathoth!!   5 months ago

    "These firings are not about poor performance—there is no evidence these employees were anything but dedicated public servants," said government employee union president Everett Kelley in a statement. "They are about gutting the federal government, silencing workers, and forcing agencies into submission to a radical agenda that prioritizes cronyism over competence."

    Yes they are about gutting the federal government.

    Why?

    Because they were about cronyism. They were 'jobs' that existed because ten people were hired to do the job of one --or none as a means of political payback.

    YOU are the cronies. Getting rid of you can only be a good thing.

    1. mad.casual   5 months ago

      I think they've confused the "an old friend" definition of "crony" with the "partner in a criminal organization" definition. He's not re-staffing these jobs with his friends 1:1 and, if you cut the organization by 50, 100, or 200k+ people it gets kinda hard to say that you're even maintaining a criminal organization at all, let alone staffing it with your friends.

  63. Moderation4ever   5 months ago

    President Trump has again engaged in an interesting social experiment. It easy to look at people laid off for the Federal government and see money saved. I wonder what the effect in the economy of a large number of people being laid off. These people will all have to be reabsorbed into new job. Purchases of cars and houses will be delayed, a will starting families. Could enough people be laid off to spin the economy into a recession, taking down more jobs. The jobs will also not be evenly spread but will be localized to communities with Federal facilities. Not suggesting that cutting is not good but noting that the impacts could be far greater than just to the laid off employees.

    1. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

      See argentina 2023-2024 for that answer

    2. Ajsloss   5 months ago

      1. With all the illegal migrants gone, liberal elites need bodies to clean their homes and manage their landscapes.
      2. Less money needed by the government means more money in the hands of those who earned it. More spending money means more consumption.

      Either way, there will be jobs for these leeches to work. Won't be as cushy, but that's why a person should develop skills outside of suckling at the government's teat.

      1. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

        you're trying to speak reason to a communist

      2. Moderation4ever   5 months ago

        What is it you think government employees do? Most are just like any other job they just do the work for the government. You think an accountant working for the government and one working for a business do different work? What about a nurse at a VA hospital are they doing different work than one at the community hospital. Same for IT staff or laboratory staff. Is there work different than in the private sector?

        1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   5 months ago

          Hilarious you chose the job if an accountant given all the graft, mispending, fraud, etc in government.

        2. Ajsloss   5 months ago

          Most are just like any other job they just do the work for the government. You think an accountant working for the government and one working for a business do different work?

          The difference is that the lazy, inept accountant in the private sector doesn't get my money if I'm not satisfied with their output. Government takes taxes regardless of my satisfaction with their output.

        3. Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)   5 months ago

          Then they can learn to code.

        4. soldiermedic76   5 months ago

          My solution for VA, fire everyone, put all eligible vets on Tri-care and let them pick their own providers that accept Tri-care (which is most since Tri-Care's reimbursements are some of the best in the industry). That'll save a lot of money and be far far more efficient and better care.

          1. Moderation4ever   5 months ago

            What you are saying is that once a person joins the military, they will essentially get their health care covered for life and at the same level as for active-duty service personnel. I have no objection to this, but I do think it will cost a lot of money. I would also note that Tri-care covers families of active-duty personnel. Can I assume you would switch to individual coverage after discharge?

            1. Truthfulness   5 months ago

              Anything that's more efficient than what we have now.

        5. Bertram Guilfoyle   5 months ago

          Is there work different than in the private sector?

          This HAS to be parody, right???

          1. Don’t get eliminated (all the sudden I have no idea where I am on the list)   5 months ago

            It is.

          2. Moderation4ever   5 months ago

            Again, how is a doctor, nurse, lab technician, bookkeeper, engineer, lawyer, file clerk any different if they work for the government?

            1. Truthfulness   5 months ago

              Easy, tax money. Let them work for someone else.

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   5 months ago

      I hear there's a labor shortage, according to your side. Seems there's a lot of jobs out there to be had.

  64. I, Woodchipper   5 months ago

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-launches-massive-10-to-1-deregulation-initiative/

    OMG, the winning continues. This is going 10x better than i had hoped

    1. Medulla Oblongata   5 months ago

      "It requires that for fiscal year 2025, the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero. "

    2. Mother's Lament (Here's your attention, Sarc. Enjoy)   5 months ago

      This is the libertarian moment and Reason is too deep and too invested in Babylon to even care.

  65. TJJ2000   5 months ago

    "They are about gutting the federal government" - 'GUNS' of dictation and theft.
    Heaven-forbid?
    Democrats are horrible criminal people.

  66. jagjr   5 months ago

    "Though I'm supportive of DOGE, there is a certain haphazard nature to these firings that leaves me wondering if they'll result in the desired outcome."

    this is exactly the problem. I'm supportive of the end goal stated for DOGE, but the organization has no actual mandate or authority, and has thus far acted in an extremely arbitrary and capricious fashion (certain haphazard nature?? it's utterly ludicrous, erratic, and inconsistent). I'm not sure their goal is really what's been stated, and I'm certain that their current haphazard approach will yield worse results with higher costs to the taxpayer than simply the status quo.

    1. Truthfulness   5 months ago

      DOGE is in full harmony within what the executive branch can do within the Constitution. You can read it in Article II.

      And no, this will not result in higher costs. The tax money will be returned to citizens.

      You don't really believe in DOGE. You're just upset that your side is being caught red-handed.

  67. Tony   5 months ago

    All those white-collar workers can be perfectly happy picking the strawberries that migrants used to pick. Maybe that fat lesbian who is apparently our overlord now can summarily strip them of their citizenship and deport them to a lawless concentration camp too.
    ???
    Profit

    1. Truthfulness   5 months ago

      Not the white-collar workers, Tony. Those in the bureaucracy can replace the illegal migrants.

      Nothing in the Constitution claims "that fat lesbian" or anyone else can single-handedly remove citizenship of an individual.

      Companies will be fine financially.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Trump's Travel Crackdown Is Hurting Americans at Home and Abroad

Matt Welch | From the August/September 2025 issue

Superman Is About the Anti-War Vibe Shift

Matthew Petti | 7.18.2025 5:23 PM

Why Are Students Using AI To Cheat? Maybe Because They Shouldn't Be In College At All

Emma Camp | 7.18.2025 4:00 PM

Although Meth Is Irresistible, The New York Times Says, Addicts Often Prefer Small Cash Rewards

Jacob Sullum | 7.18.2025 1:45 PM

ICE Is Shipping Detainees to Hawaii as Bed Space on the U.S. Mainland Fills Up

Autumn Billings | 7.18.2025 1:24 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!