"Forget the myths the media created... The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."
--All The President's Men
ryandvm · 8h ago
Americans still getting what they voted for. Not sure what we're supposed to think about this.
scarecrowbob · 4h ago
How are my kids getting what they deserve? How are my friends and family in heavily gerrymandered TX getting what they deserve?
US political representation has never represented me. Explain how I am "getting what I voted for"? Should I have voted harder? Voted more often? Spent more than I make in a year every year on political messages?
Apreche · 9h ago
People act like this is a mistake. It’s intentional.
The FBI investigates, among other things, white collar crime and also domestic terrorism. Most domestic terrorism is carried about by right wing white supremacists. White collar crime is carried out by wealthy Republicans.
If they could, they would just get rid of the FBI. But putting fools in charge and making it ineffective is nearly as good for their purposes.
What can I say, modern counterintel work is not a lot like le Carre of the past.
aredox · 14h ago
>If his 15-year career at the bureau was coming to an end, he wanted to depart with at least some dignity rather than being marched out the door. By the following afternoon, he had resigned.
Thank you for thinking about yourself first, and helping them tighten their grip on the FBI by making yourself powerless, all in order to protect your ego.
goatlover · 15h ago
This is one reason why it's important for certain federal agencies to remain largely independent from the president.
fakedang · 14h ago
Yeah you already have that, and it's called the CIA.
aredox · 14h ago
You already have that, and it's called the FED.
The CIA has more oversight than the FED, through the "gang of eight" and the Congress' OCA.
The problem with the CIA is deeper than the CIA and is related to Americans' widespread contempt of anything outside their borders - a disdain completely shared by their own cruel, uninformed, egoistical electorate.
jpadkins · 14h ago
How do we the people change or influence the federal government if the agencies are independent from elections?
In your model, do federal agencies all become like the Supreme Court? Lifetime appointments chosen by the President at the time someone retires?
tialaramex · 14h ago
That your mind went to the US Supreme Court, a notoriously non-independent body is symptomatic of how rotten the US was already decades before this.
You need actual independent process. It takes real, sustained effort to create the culture where such processes thrive, where people are proud of their independence and their commitment to an ideal rather than an individual - and if a "populist" tries to assault them you need to actually defend them because they are the whole point of having a government by the people and not "Well these two rich guys decided..."
jpadkins · 14h ago
Help me understand how an independent government agency (especially a federal police force like the FBI, which can investigate, arrest and kill people) is compatible with a democratic government. Who exactly are they independent of? How are they responsive to the will of the people?
It sounds like you are saying they should be independent of the elected President. If so, who are the accountable to and how?
aredox · 13h ago
>How are they responsive to the will of the people?
What is this "will of the people" you are talking about? What people are you talking about? How do you infer their "will"?
This current president has been elected by 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. Due to the electoral college, a Wyoming voter has 3.6 times the power of a California voter. His approval rating is already negative, and is policies poll negatively too[0]. What mandate does he have? What exactly is the will of the people and why has it changed completely in 6 months? What policy is right when the will of the people changes completely every six months?
To the courts? According to the laws and statutes voted by Congress?
I mean, have you ever educated yourself about your own political system before asking those questions? Shouldn't you have?
jpadkins · 12h ago
will of the people is a common phrase used in context to a democratic form of government. Elections are how the 'will of the people' are expressed (not polls, but political parties do listen to polls).
I'm not interested in discussing the current president, I am interested in your very different interpretation of the US government (which clearly lays out 3 branches of government).
> To the courts? According to the laws and statutes voted by Congress?
So in your view on how the government should run, after Congress creates a federal agencies, they don't have to worry about any election or democratic process. They only have to worry about the courts if they break the law? Who arrests or prosecutes the DOJ or the FBI? Who brings them to court?
> I mean, have you ever educated yourself about your own political system before asking those questions? Shouldn't you have?
I understand the US government, as designed by the US constitution very well. I am trying to understand this bizarre concept of "independent" federal agencies and why people should prefer that over our current system of an executive branch led by an democratically elected President. A government of agencies with permanent power, with no checks or balances or any reason to be concerned with what citizens care about sounds like a dystopian form of government. You haven't really convinced me that this "independent" style is preferable in anyway. All you really have done is just ranted on why you don't like the current President, but I bet you didn't care about these agencies "independence" from POTUS 44 or 46.
aredox · 11h ago
>I understand the US government, as designed by the US constitution very well.
> A government of agencies with permanent power, with no checks or balances or any reason to be concerned with what citizens care about
Both of those sentences are lies.
But enjoy your return to the 1800's nepotism and patronage.
These two articles were literaly the first page results when you google "independent agencies us history", but you couldn't be bothered, so you choose to bother everyone here.
tzs · 2h ago
> How do we the people change or influence the federal government if the agencies are independent from elections?
Congress creates an agency. The President nominates the agency's top leadership and the Senate votes on those nominations.
The terms of these top leaders are longer than the term of the President and are staggered so that each new President will have a chance to replace some of the agency's top leadership but not all of them.
englishrookie · 14h ago
You do that by voting people into power who pass laws which provide a framework for these agencies to operate in. Putting these agencies under direct control of a central government (the federal government in this case) will inevitably erode civic society. See Hungary, Poland (until recently) and Turkey.
jpadkins · 14h ago
So Congress creates agencies and also selects who runs those agencies? Can Congress fire the heads of these agencies? The management team? Or all employees of the agency?
So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch?
aredox · 13h ago
The executive branch is there to execute the decisions of the judiciary branch, following the rules and laws set by the legislative branch.
Are you completely unaware of the principle of separation of powers conceptualized 250 years ago which is a cornerstone of XXth century democracies across the world?
jpadkins · 12h ago
Yes, I am very aware. And the executive branch is led by a democratically elected President who appoints the heads of the departments and is responsible for the successful execution of the laws.
There is no concept of an "independent" (of the 3 branches) federal agency in the US constitution. I thought it was a bizarre concept, and I asked if you could explain it or why you think it's beneficial. Instead, you choose to devolve into personal attacks (probably because you don't have any good arguments or explanations).
relaxing · 11h ago
The reasons why it is beneficial are well known. It’s bizarre you failed to pick up that knowledge in high school civics class.
And the downsides to federal departments staffed by political hacks and flunkies are playing out in front of us.
jpadkins · 9h ago
federal departments have always been staffed by political hacks and flunkies. This is not a new phenomenon. But no one has articulated a better way that is also responsive to the electorate.
Monarchy would probably result in a much more efficient gov, with competent staffed departments. But it's not ruled by the people. I still don't see any good arguments on why un-elected bureaucracies is better than status quo.
aredox · 8h ago
>Monarchy would probably result in a much more efficient gov, with competent staffed departments.
... Thank you for this joke, Curtis Yarvin. Now get off.
aredox · 11h ago
>Instead, you choose to devolve into personal attacks (probably because you don't have any good arguments or explanations).
Independant agencies have been set up since the 1880s. Do you think you are the first person to "ask questions"? Did you do a modicum of research on the topic before "asking questions"? Do you know the existence of the internet, of google search and of books?
Do you know about "Chesterton's Fence"?
jpadkins · 8h ago
I've done some research. I didn't find any arguments on why un-elected bureaucracies are better than the status quo. The Federal Reserve is the currently most independent "agency" we have (privately owned corporation with a board chosen by Presidents). It's hardly a poster child for good governance. Can you imagine if the DOJ was owned and operated by private corporations, where Congress or the President would pick a board? Sounds like tyranny to me. I asked genuine questions if anyone had arguments for why this is better. Clearly you don't have any.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF · 8h ago
You seem to have drawn conclusions based on your assumptions:
> So Congress creates agencies and also selects who runs those agencies? Can Congress fire the heads of these agencies? The management team? Or all employees of the agency?
> So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch?
The second set of questions are irrelevant unless the first set of questions are answered affirmatively (hint: they’re not and you didn’t understand the point you were replying to). I agree that others are being rude in their interactions with you here but I also don’t really see your questions worth engaging more than I already have.
AnimalMuppet · 7h ago
> It's hardly a poster child for good governance.
I'd like to see your evidence that it's badly governed, rather than just a one-line condemnation.
Its job is to control the value of the dollar. I think they've done a very good job of that in some very difficult circumstances. Not perfect, but very good. (Compare the crash of 2008 to, say, the Panic of 1893.)
Do you think that, if the Federal Reserve was setting the interest rate at the president's command, that we would be better off? If so, I think you are living in a fantasy land.
--All The President's Men
US political representation has never represented me. Explain how I am "getting what I voted for"? Should I have voted harder? Voted more often? Spent more than I make in a year every year on political messages?
The FBI investigates, among other things, white collar crime and also domestic terrorism. Most domestic terrorism is carried about by right wing white supremacists. White collar crime is carried out by wealthy Republicans.
If they could, they would just get rid of the FBI. But putting fools in charge and making it ineffective is nearly as good for their purposes.
Thank you for thinking about yourself first, and helping them tighten their grip on the FBI by making yourself powerless, all in order to protect your ego.
The CIA has more oversight than the FED, through the "gang of eight" and the Congress' OCA.
The problem with the CIA is deeper than the CIA and is related to Americans' widespread contempt of anything outside their borders - a disdain completely shared by their own cruel, uninformed, egoistical electorate.
In your model, do federal agencies all become like the Supreme Court? Lifetime appointments chosen by the President at the time someone retires?
You need actual independent process. It takes real, sustained effort to create the culture where such processes thrive, where people are proud of their independence and their commitment to an ideal rather than an individual - and if a "populist" tries to assault them you need to actually defend them because they are the whole point of having a government by the people and not "Well these two rich guys decided..."
It sounds like you are saying they should be independent of the elected President. If so, who are the accountable to and how?
What is this "will of the people" you are talking about? What people are you talking about? How do you infer their "will"?
This current president has been elected by 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. Due to the electoral college, a Wyoming voter has 3.6 times the power of a California voter. His approval rating is already negative, and is policies poll negatively too[0]. What mandate does he have? What exactly is the will of the people and why has it changed completely in 6 months? What policy is right when the will of the people changes completely every six months?
[0] https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
> If so, who are the accountable to and how?
To the courts? According to the laws and statutes voted by Congress?
I mean, have you ever educated yourself about your own political system before asking those questions? Shouldn't you have?
I'm not interested in discussing the current president, I am interested in your very different interpretation of the US government (which clearly lays out 3 branches of government).
> To the courts? According to the laws and statutes voted by Congress?
So in your view on how the government should run, after Congress creates a federal agencies, they don't have to worry about any election or democratic process. They only have to worry about the courts if they break the law? Who arrests or prosecutes the DOJ or the FBI? Who brings them to court?
> I mean, have you ever educated yourself about your own political system before asking those questions? Shouldn't you have?
I understand the US government, as designed by the US constitution very well. I am trying to understand this bizarre concept of "independent" federal agencies and why people should prefer that over our current system of an executive branch led by an democratically elected President. A government of agencies with permanent power, with no checks or balances or any reason to be concerned with what citizens care about sounds like a dystopian form of government. You haven't really convinced me that this "independent" style is preferable in anyway. All you really have done is just ranted on why you don't like the current President, but I bet you didn't care about these agencies "independence" from POTUS 44 or 46.
> A government of agencies with permanent power, with no checks or balances or any reason to be concerned with what citizens care about
Both of those sentences are lies.
But enjoy your return to the 1800's nepotism and patronage.
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/3595/
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/20/nx-s1-5302537/history-congres...
These two articles were literaly the first page results when you google "independent agencies us history", but you couldn't be bothered, so you choose to bother everyone here.
Congress creates an agency. The President nominates the agency's top leadership and the Senate votes on those nominations.
The terms of these top leaders are longer than the term of the President and are staggered so that each new President will have a chance to replace some of the agency's top leadership but not all of them.
So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch?
Are you completely unaware of the principle of separation of powers conceptualized 250 years ago which is a cornerstone of XXth century democracies across the world?
And the downsides to federal departments staffed by political hacks and flunkies are playing out in front of us.
Monarchy would probably result in a much more efficient gov, with competent staffed departments. But it's not ruled by the people. I still don't see any good arguments on why un-elected bureaucracies is better than status quo.
... Thank you for this joke, Curtis Yarvin. Now get off.
Independant agencies have been set up since the 1880s. Do you think you are the first person to "ask questions"? Did you do a modicum of research on the topic before "asking questions"? Do you know the existence of the internet, of google search and of books? Do you know about "Chesterton's Fence"?
> So Congress creates agencies and also selects who runs those agencies? Can Congress fire the heads of these agencies? The management team? Or all employees of the agency?
> So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch?
The second set of questions are irrelevant unless the first set of questions are answered affirmatively (hint: they’re not and you didn’t understand the point you were replying to). I agree that others are being rude in their interactions with you here but I also don’t really see your questions worth engaging more than I already have.
I'd like to see your evidence that it's badly governed, rather than just a one-line condemnation.
Its job is to control the value of the dollar. I think they've done a very good job of that in some very difficult circumstances. Not perfect, but very good. (Compare the crash of 2008 to, say, the Panic of 1893.)
Do you think that, if the Federal Reserve was setting the interest rate at the president's command, that we would be better off? If so, I think you are living in a fantasy land.