Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The neocons are all part of democratic apparatus now. Once it became known that they were not going to get war profiteering under Trump, they switched wagons. Democratic party is the party of neocons now.


Individual identities transcend binary party classification, especially over issues as complex as international engagement.

In the Democratic party, there's the group advocating for involvement on the basis of individual rights and one on the basis of supporting the post-WWII rule of law world order.

In the Republican party, there's still the group advocating for American exceptionalism. However, given that Republican presidents initiated the last two major wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), general party support for military interventionalism is at a low ebb. Give it a few more years for memories to reset (~2028).


Huh. now that they do not please their voters, conclusion is that they are infiltrated by neocons? I don't think they are changed. They just showed their true colors with the recent events.


Who has switched? Or do you mean voters? How do you know this?


I don't know why you're being downvoted, it is true. Even though Trump sucked, he did start 0 new wars. Whereas the current administration has signed us up for several conflicts, which the neocons love.


It seems like anything critical of the deep state get immediately downvoted here and then floats back up after a certain time. There also no argument given as to why the downvotes occur. Maybe downvotes with substantive replys should carry more weight?

And theres always shareblue monitoring forums, which is deeply embedded with spooks.

Unelecteds heavily vote democrat/big government because of job security. They don't care about your rights hence pro-FISA. As a matter of fact it appears many of them believe your rights are afforded to you by the government, which seems very totalitarian.


Because when you say emotionally-inflammatory, illogical things, most people will downvote and move on, instead of engaging?

If you want a substantive discussion, try dropping the fear-words like "unelected"s: this isn't the Fox News comment section.


And here is an example of ad hominem attacks and downvotes. Nothing substantial was said, you have given 0 examples of illogical or emotional content.

Do facts scare you because they are certainly unelected as in not elected to the office they hold. What word would make you feel better, @ethbr1?

I assume you are not an American.


Who heads the executive branch?


I don't mind feeding trolls so here it goes. The elected President is head of the executive branch.

What's your point?

The above comment is an excellent example of what type of comment should be grey texted into oblivion.


If the President is elected, and the President holds the power to staff the executive branch (subject to the approval of Congress and the restraints on arbitrary exercise of the CSA of 1883 and CSRA of 1978), then in what sense is the bureaucracy uncontrolled by the electorate?

Or do I misunderstand the American system of government?


Yes, you are severely misunderstanding the federal government or at the least making a leap of judgement.

https://apnews.com/article/federal-employee-job-protections-...

You sure seem awfully defendant of FISA and government abuse. Why is that?


The CSA and CSRA were both implemented to put a stop to the spoils system for executive offices that existed previously.

Do you think that was better?

And if not, how would you propose re-politicizing civil service positions without falling victim to spoils again?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: