Political So now what

[Stephen]

Our politicians have given away all control to 3 letter agencies that has grown the bureaucracy of the United States government and that causes us more problems than anything. The ability of the EPA to enact rules that then it takes a law to reverse, 3 letter agencies that can stall and ignore oversight until there is a new administration, etc, etc, etc. There is not a politician that we can elect that will ever do anything until powers are taken away from bureaucrats.

This reminded me of an interview with Reagan in 1975 with Johnny Carson. If you just watch the first six minutes, you'll see that we've been talking about all this stuff for 50+ years:

And from Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address:

". . . as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people."

We're not going to get back to Reaganism anytime soon, sadly. But it's always good to reflect on how he was able to turn the ship around and put us back on a course that led to a generation of prosperity.

 

[anderson750]

This reminded me of an interview with Reagan in 1975 with Johnny Carson. If you just watch the first six minutes, you'll see that we've been talking about all this stuff for 50+ years:

And from Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address:

". . . as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people."

We're not going to get back to Reaganism anytime soon, sadly. But it's always good to reflect on how he was able to turn the ship around and put us back on a course that led to a generation of prosperity.

And this is why the bureaucrats hate people who are not beholden to them and will do anything within their power to undermine them. You are pretty in tune with the nuances of politics and I would bet you could dig through how our government has changed since Reagan and point out how the bureaucrats have learned from the changes of Reagan and said, we are not letting this happen again.

 

[Houndoc]

Our politicians have given away all control to 3 letter agencies that has grown the bureaucracy of the United States government and that causes us more problems than anything. The ability of the EPA to enact rules that then it takes a law to reverse, 3 letter agencies that can stall and ignore oversight until there is a new administration, etc, etc, etc. There is not a politician that we can elect that will every do anything until powers are taken away from bureaucrats.

Let me offer a different perspective on this one.

For eight years I served on the Veterinary Licensing Board for Utah. In addition to being a disciplinary board, we were also by law the "rules" writing body for implementing the Veterinary Practice Act.

There were a number of times we had to address issues that were not anticipated with the practice act passed the legislature. Our rules still had to have a legal review and public comment period before they could be implemented. If there was not the authority to right 'rules' implementing the law (practice act) then every time an issue arose, with would requiring the passing of a bill by the legislature to do anything.

That would both slow the process down to the point of complete inaction and ensure the final wording was written and passed by people with no real knowledge or understanding of the issues at hand, based on political pressure.

There is no question that especially at the federal level those involved with rule making over step their authority (the courts can and do step in as needed).

However expected all the details of every law to be precisely written by the legislature and updated as new issues, facts etc arise is going to be far worse.

 

[J Kimmel]

I would imagine you acted with the best of intentions in what you were doing, and I’m sure it’s a necessary part of the process.
I believe the difference we have today however within our multitude of 3 letter agencies is a vast proliferation of activist employees. They don’t have our best interests in mind. They have their own. They also are well aware that the common man’s only solution is wildly expensive and lengthy legal challenges that most people can’t afford to fight and definitely can’t afford to lose. So they do whatever they want. Doesn’t matter what the law is. BLM and EPA are great examples.

 

[anderson750]

Let me offer a different perspective on this one.

For eight years I served on the Veterinary Licensing Board for Utah. In addition to being a disciplinary board, we were also by law the "rules" writing body for implementing the Veterinary Practice Act.

There were a number of times we had to address issues that were not anticipated with the practice act passed the legislature. Our rules still had to have a legal review and public comment period before they could be implemented. If there was not the authority to right 'rules' implementing the law (practice act) then every time an issue arose, with would requiring the passing of a bill by the legislature to do anything.

That would both slow the process down to the point of complete inaction and ensure the final wording was written and passed by people with no real knowledge or understanding of the issues at hand, based on political pressure.

There is no question that especially at the federal level those involved with rule making over step their authority (the courts can and do step in as needed).

However expected all the details of every law to be precisely written by the legislature and updated as new issues, facts etc arise is going to be far worse.

All very valid points

I would imagine you acted with the best of intentions in what you were doing, and I’m sure it’s a necessary part of the process.
I believe the difference we have today however within our multitude of 3 letter agencies is a vast proliferation of activist employees. They don’t have our best interests in mind. They have their own. They also are well aware that the common man’s only solution is wildly expensive and lengthy legal challenges that most people can’t afford to fight and definitely can’t afford to lose. So they do whatever they want. Doesn’t matter what the law is. BLM and EPA are great examples.

This is more along the point I was trying to make.

 

[Houndoc]

Curious as to thoughts related to Hunter Biden's conviction.

 

[Cody]

Political stunt. Attempted to care less. Failed.

 

[Kevin B.]

Curious as to thoughts related to Hunter Biden's conviction.

Very yawn. Much irrelevant. Dude lied on a form he knew it was a crime to lie on, got caught, he'll probably do a little country-club time for it and that'll be that.

I guess it's interesting to me that he fought it, and Dad didn't tell him to shut up and take his lumps and GTFO out of the news. They must have thought they had a really good shot at acquittal.

 

[RustEoldtrux]

Sentencing and probable pardon are big unknowns. My guess is not much will happen.

 

[Hickey]

It’s slightly less interesting than the Trump trial, so also don’t care.

 

[glockman]

Political stunt for sure. I'm pleased to see that they are at least doing the show. I would be in federal prison for what he did. The ATF has gone after people who didn't break the laws. The hearing when this first came out and the director of the ATF refused to even acknowledge that Hunter had publicly admitted to this is exactly why Americans have so little trust in our government. Now I have to remove this as an example of the political class publicly admitting to crimes and not being procescuted, even though he won't really be punished.

 

[J Kimmel]

Curious as to thoughts related to Hunter Biden's conviction.

Great opportunity to pretend the DOJ is impartial, despite overlooking all of the other wildly more corrupt and verifiable information in the Russian disinformation laptop that despite that we used as evidence to convict him anyway that would’ve likely led to far more sinister and larger crimes involving many of the Biden family members but sure.

 

[anderson750]

#dogandponyshow

 

[02SE]

Let us know when the DOJ takes up the IRS whistleblowers much more serious evidence, for the Biden crime family.

 

[johngottfredson]

Let us know when the DOJ takes up the IRS whistleblowers much more serious evidence, for the Biden crime family.

Biden Crime Family. That’s awesome.

 

[UNSTUCK]

Well at least he’s a convicted felon now. He may get nothing this time but I believe he has a tax evasion case coming up. The felon title will/should make things much worse for him if he’s convicted for that one.

 

[anderson750]

Well at least he’s a convicted felon now. He may get nothing this time but I believe he has a tax evasion case coming up. The felon title will/should make things much worse for him if he’s convicted for that one.

I would be surprised if there is not a plea deal on this case. I don't think they want this going to trial since it will bring to mainstream media all the details of what he was doing making the money, which if the DOJ was going to do what they did to Flynn, would end in FARRA charges, which would lead even closer to the influence peddling that was going on.

 

[UNSTUCK]

This will all be a blockbuster movie in ten years.

 

[anderson750]

When CNN is freaking out ……

Here is my tinfoil hat theory. Never before has there been a presidential debate this early. Nobody thought going into this that CNN was going to play the middle of the road….especially with Tapper and Bash who have shown plenty of bias…….but they really did. The Democrat party knows Joe is in trouble and this was a move to get him out. Question is, will he bow out or will it take the convention to get him out. I was texting with an up and comer within one of the main national conservative outlets about this and his bet is that they are going to try and get Newsome in. Not sure how Kamala will tolerate being replaced by a young white male

 

[jeeper]

If it is decided Joe has to go, do they have to hold new voting for the democrat party?