politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I do not understand why the fact that Musk is "unelected" matters so much to everyone. Is the Secretary of Defence elected? The Attorney General?
Those are real positions that are appointed by every President. "DOGE" is a complete bullshit position/department pulled out of thin air to avoid any kind of confirmation and/or security clearance.
It is incredibly dangerous for a President to be allowed to invent whole government departments and appoint whoever he wants to them without any checks and balances.
oh I fully agree. But you didn't address the issue of electedness at all.
It is in fact common for presidents to make up new advisory positions. If Trump wanted to make up an "Advisor of Best-Tasting Coffee", there's no problems there - they can help him make decisions with executive orders, or inform Congress about best steps forward for certain initiatives, etc. So just "making up a role" isn't an issue in itself.
BUT, even the attorney general or SoD would not have powers to fire people at will all over the administration. In many court cases it's been found even Trump himself wouldn't have that power.
so it's a lot of power that he has, too much power. I think we agree here -- but nothing you're saying seems to be related to electedness. If Trump, who was elected, shouldn't have the power, and yet Musk does, then "unelected" doesn't seem remotely relevant to the problem.
I think it's just to point out another layer of legitimacy he doesn't have to do what he's doing.
You don't hear this criticism levelled at other malfunctioning government officials though. Perhaps one would if they went as off-the-rails as Musk. Still, I wish people would use accurate critiques of their opponents, such as as @Doctor_Satan mentions, that he is wholly without cheques or balances.
And he's not a government official, even though he's impersonating one, and that the administration tells the public he's in charge of a government agency but tells the courts he's not.
While all of these things are true, I find it disingenuous to imply that his not having been elected is somehow less accurate than any other criticism levelled against him.
okay, so he's not a government official. I think that "not a government official" would be a great description, still better than "unelected" which in my opinion is not relevant -- he was appointed directly by an elected official, just like actual government officials. I don't see why it's disingenuous.
@sporkler @jsomae has he formally passed any security checks yet?
I doubt he could pass a captcha.