896
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
896 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23115 readers
3454 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Relevant bit from the article, because some of y'all apparently comment before reading:
My understanding is: Founding a new Department can only be done by Congress, so they had to "redefine" (more like corrupt) an existing one.
I have seen some news sites giving this with headlines like "DOGE Goons resign" without the part you just quoted of course. top notch newsmanship
Yeah, they renamed it to DOGE, presumably because using the term duke would be off putting to their drone followers. Then they gave the organization a fuck ton more authority and ignored judicial rulings. What does any of it have to do with Obama though?
It has nothing to do with Obama. Is that a trigger word for you or something? It's because of comments like this.
Trigger word? I was asking why they are trying to tie an authoritarian move to a president who left office in the way a democratic Republic set up over 2 terms ago.
Have fun with your buzzwords.
You seem very confused about the text quoted by the previous poster.
How so?
Because you seem to imply that there’s something nefarious about citing Obama to describe that the US Digital Service office was established during the Obama presidency, when it’s just what happened.
The point of the copied text was to point out those workers were not newly hired and realizing they didn't want to participate in bad acts, they were employees that existed prior to this administration and quit because they didn't want to take part in bad acts.
At no point do we hear that the employees worked for that company for at least 9 years, meaning that Obama starting the US Digital Service office is irrelevant. They could have started 2 years ago, 7 years ago or 9 years ago, that information is unknown so to tie it to the Obama Administration was chosen for a reason. I don't say the IRS started by the Abraham Lincoln has seen the O'Donnell resignation unless I am specifically trying to call attention to Lincoln.
It's just a weird choice to bring it up
You were mistaken about contextual intent and now have leaned into your incorrect inference reaction full Reddit style.
It's ok, it happens, no need to to keep spinning plates.
If you read something and don't question why information not contextually obligated to be there is there, you will completely ignore bias and propagandas existence within text. Just because we agree with the bias of this article doesn't mean I or anyone else shouldn't question the intent.
As an end run around constitutional checks and balances, instead creating a new agency l they corrupted and took over an existing agency set up by obama
The president had no authority to create a new agency but seems to be getting away with a technicality
Notice you said a president can't create a new agency, then said Obama did. He didn't create it, the 114th Congress did. Both the Senate and the House were Republican majority when it was created. So it is true if Obama didn't want it he could have tried to veto it, but the only way it could have been created was by a majority vote.
Something possibly worth noting as well: "This bill directs the President to continue to operate, for FY2017-FY2026, the United States Digital Service as such program operated using funds made available under the Information Technology Oversight and Reform account in division E of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2016." -H.R.5372
DOGE may be auto defunded after Fiscal Year 2026 unless the Congress/Senate push through a continuation which undoubtedly they should be able to get approved being that they hold the house and Senate majority again.
They weren't. They were responding to the FAFO comments about the people who resigned in protest.
The agency that got renamed was formed during his presidency?
It's not uncommon to mention the president who started an agency in little blurbs describing their history. Like with the Environmental Protection Agency & Nixon.