CRC wrote:gcomeau wrote:So setting aside the conspiracy theory undertones of that... how exactly has Trump "exposed" anything considering 3 of the 4 extremely public examples you just gave pre-dated him?
Those were examples that are well known in the past. In 4-5 years you might have similar examples relevant to today. But seriously, the extent of the leakage of classified information is astounding and unprecedented.
So is the scope and quantity of the material that warrants leaking. They go hand in hand.
You are trying to attribute to deep dark conspiracy that which is obviously attributable to gross incompetence and misconduct by the administration itself.
Are you saying you actually think they haven't been repeatedly reviewed before?
Well according to your cite the date on the report is 2011. If I’m not mistaken its now 2017. Since 2011 Obama reportedly issued 111 new ‘rules”.
That would be EOs. And only Trump can act on executive orders so that has nothing to do with any directed regulatory review by any other departments.
Topped off by 97,110 pages in the Federal Registry in 2016. So again, the question arises. Is the Trump EO requiring a new round of reviews right or not?
It's busywork and PR. Obama only did it to make the GOP shut up about it. Trump is only doing it to throw red meat to the same people.
Pointless busywork and grandstanding. As if all the myriad law enforcement agencies across the nation weren't already working on this... all the time... as you know, their entire job.
So you oppose Trump directing DoJ to “do their job”? Of course its grandstanding. That does not make it wrong.
No, it makes it a pointless waste of time... something done to give the easy appearance of doing work without the actual work part. Which is the description of most of anything Trump does. All show, no substance.
Would give him credit.... if he wasn't just giving entire government agencies and departments directly TO the people they are supposed to be regulating so they have no need to lobby. (EPA and Education anyone... not to mention making the CEO of Exxon Mobile Sec State...)
#4 and the Big O. You deflected to yet another tangent to further reduce the need to agree with the EO. You first discredited his EO by claiming it should have covered everyone when it could not have in the first place – now you raise an entirely different and non-sequitur to the first – spinning and claiming that now there is no need to lobby.
Maybe you should try harder to keep track of who you are replying to.
There was no "first" thing I said. I replied to you once before this. There was *one* thing I said... that thing right up there.
And the one thing I said was not a non-sequitur. It was pointing out that his lobbying ban is *meaningless* when he is simply handing control of the government directly to the people who would normally be lobbying it.
And you're a much more authoritative source on that subject than the Sioux whose burial sites they are who say the pipeline cuts right through a sacred burial site...?(Not to mention through the only source of clean water for the entire reservation.)
But I can read a map. And I am intimately familiar with the supremacy clause. You said “Because authorising a pipeline through sacred ground in violation of existing treaties…”. But the pipelines do not go through any ground in violation of existing treaties. Period. I successfully disputed your claim.
Again, try to keep track of who you are speaking to. (and also, if you wouldn't mind, use the quote tags. Your posts are unnecessarily hard to read)
(And the map you are reading shows treaty boundaries that are under dispute. FYI.)
Which was more stupid pointless grandstanding and has already had a bunch of unintended but entirely predictable negative consequences because when you want to cut waste generally you have to IDENTIFY waste first, not just declare a blanket prohibition on hires without knowing what people are being hired *for*.
EO’s are always somewhat political grandstanding. But it sets a tone.
Actually... no. No they aren't.
Businesses do it all the time. (And then they carve out exceptions, just the Feds are doing.) But the overall number of federal, state and local employees is getting out of hand and has to be addressed.
In what fantasy world?
Public sector employment has been lagging WAY down since the Great Recession. It
should have been growing to fight unemployment and stimulate economic recovery but mostly the GOP controlled states slashed jobs right when the economy needed people working. Which is a REAL reason the recovery took so long, not financial regulations.
http://static2.businessinsider.com/imag ... pt2014.png The number of federal employees were about 2.7M in 2014 (excluding the military). Now considering that there is about 160M in the civilian labor force and there are about 20M employed at the state and local levels, we are talking close to 23M Federal, State and Local government employees. That’s over 14% of all working people are essentially overhead.
What the hell do you think "overhead" means?
Those workers are not "overhead".