Warrior General Games

Originally posted by MontaviousX
Seems kinda odd that his “recommendations” happen in a matter of days. Almost like the departments have no choice, or are being strong armed.

Play along with me--if the sitting President, as the unquestioned leader of the *Executive* branch, agreed with DOGE's findings....why would the departments have a lot of say in the matter?

Look at it this way. Assume a new CEO was appointed to lead a tennis ball company decided "We need to close the Scranton factory"...why would the lesser executives be allowed a whole lot of time to "consider" whether they agreed with that recommendation?

They'd close the Scranton factory. That's how "chain of command" works.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
That's how "chain of command" works.

In the unquestioning authoritarian dictatorships that Der Golfenfuhrer so admires, that's how it works. Our system was specifically designed to avoid that, because we don't need or want "unquestioned leaders," because sometimes the CEO is a fucking idiot and the Scranton factory is the highest producing one.

In your example Larry in a company there's also a board of governors who can vote on decisions to determine if it's in the best interest of the company. That's how the government is set up, it's based on checks and balances

Originally posted by atlbruce
In the unquestioning authoritarian dictatorships that Der Golfenfuhrer so admires, that's how it works. Our system was specifically designed to avoid that, because we don't need or want "unquestioned leaders," because sometimes the CEO is a fucking idiot and the Scranton factory is the highest producing one.

No, you're confused. "Freedom of Speech" allows those who disagree with the Executive Branch to voice their concerns. Our leaders aren't and shouldn't be free from scrutiny and concern.

But the Executive Branch is free to "execute" within the boundaries of the law.

Originally posted by jcross
In your example Larry in a company there's also a board of governors who can vote on decisions to determine if it's in the best interest of the company. That's how the government is set up, it's based on checks and balances

Its rare that the board of directors will step in to countermand the order(s) of the CEO. They're more likely to replace the CEO, which in terms of the Executive Branch, we get a chance to decide on every 4 years.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
But the Executive Branch is free to "execute" within the boundaries of the law.

And there's the problem. The Felon in Chief doesn't give a shit about the law, as any "quick Google search" of his past reveals. And his bootlicking minions follow suit.

Originally posted by atlbruce
And there's the problem. The Felon in Chief doesn't give a shit about the law, as any "quick Google search" of his past reveals. And his bootlicking minions follow suit.

You're not asserting that any of his current actions violate the power of the Execute branch.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
You're not asserting that any of his current actions violate the power of the Execute branch.

I don't need to. If you followed real news about the real world outside the safe zone of your cult bubble, you would know that this administration is facing at least 114 lawsuits at the moment:

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

Originally posted by atlbruce
I don't need to. If you followed real news about the real world outside the safe zone of your cult bubble, you would know that this administration is facing at least 114 lawsuits at the moment:

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

Every administration faces lawsuits, particularly when we volley between (D) and (R) administrations.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Every administration faces lawsuits, particularly when we volley between (D) and (R) administrations.

Sure, there's lawsuits, and then there's lawsuits: https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/02/03/lawsuit-promo_wide-9a9e8458d1ab0b872d71daf8b4e381e1f2443ba8.png

*This chart was made two weeks into this administration. The bottom line is over twice as long now.

Originally posted by atlbruce
Sure, there's lawsuits, and then there's lawsuits: https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/02/03/lawsuit-promo_wide-9a9e8458d1ab0b872d71daf8b4e381e1f2443ba8.png

*This chart was made two weeks into this administration. The bottom line is over twice as long now.

I wonder how many will be left to have any effect a few months from now?

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
I wonder how many will be left to have any effect a few months from now?

We probably won't much care, since we'll be suffering through yet ANOTHER, inevitable Republican-crafted recession:
"Inflation heated up to 3% last month for the first time since June."
"The S&P 500’s retail index, which tracks a broad range of retail companies, has dropped 13% in 2025 and fallen to its lowest level in more than a year."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/business/consumer-spending-trump-retail/index.html

Our president was hocking Tesla’s in front of the White House.

Member when Nazi’s named Volkswagen the car of Germany?

Not to mention the legality of him doing so.

This is just … it’s just so fucking dumb. I don’t understand how people can look at this and go “yeah, that’s what I want my president doing. Trying to sell me a car”

Also I’d be VERY curious to see how much stock he or his family owns in Tesla now

Originally posted by MontaviousX
Our president was hocking Tesla’s in front of the White House.

Member when Nazi’s named Volkswagen the car of Germany?

Not to mention the legality of him doing so.

This is just … it’s just so fucking dumb. I don’t understand how people can look at this and go “yeah, that’s what I want my president doing. Trying to sell me a car”

Also I’d be VERY curious to see how much stock he or his family owns in Tesla now

If I remember correctly, a President is required to put his holdings in some sort of blind trust?