Oligarchy

[durangodawood]

Ike was my birth-president

Oh then youre probly too old to get it!

 

[durangodawood]

How could anyone not know of such an important cultural landmark?

Indeed. Its our Tolstoy, basically.

 

[Chesterton]

Those appointees go through the nomination process replete with background checks and all do the not?

Yes, but that's not the same as being elected by the people.

Would Mr. Musk who has no problem getting high on social media get through that process?

I can't answer that. I've never even met Mr. Musk. But we've had presidents known to have smoked pot since at least Bill Clinton, allegedly J.F.K. in the 1960's also.

 

[Chesterton]

Indeed. Its our Tolstoy, basically.

I think The Unknown Comic is a much more important literary figure than Tolstoy. A joke is a form of literature isn't it? No? Okay never mind.

 

[Say it aint so]

Yes, but that's not the same as being elected by the people.

I can't answer that. I've never even met Mr. Musk. But we've had presidents known to have smoked pot since at least Bill Clinton, allegedly J.F.K. in the 1960's also.

Yes, not elected. Not nominated.
They are basically an advisory commission and not a department of anything. Departments through a constitution process replete with the heads of those departments, once again going through vetting.

 

[durangodawood]

I can't answer that. I've never even met Mr. Musk. But we've had presidents known to have smoked pot since at least Bill Clinton, allegedly J.F.K. in the 1960's also.

Clinton didnt inhale - which begs the question: how can a person do a thing so incompetently? I totally believe him, of course.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, not elected. Not nominated.
They are basically an advisory commission and not a department of anything. Departments through a constitution process replete with the heads of those departments, once again going through vetting.

What is your point?

 

[Pommer]

Yes, not elected. Not nominated.
They are basically an advisory commission and not a department of anything. Departments through a constitution process replete with the heads of those departments, once again going through vetting.

I’m sure once Prince Mister Musk divests himself of all of his current financial and business ownings, that he’d be welcomed by all ethical people in and out of the government.

 

[DaisyDay]

Nope, he has no power to instruct them.

Power of the purse and politics.

Gee I kinda wish he did.

Wish was granted.

 

[BCP1928]

Nope, he has no power to instruct them. Gee I kinda wish he did.

Wishing for megalomaniarchy.

 

[Say it aint so]

What is your point?

If they are calling themselves a "Department" which they are, that department is not constitutional. They, as advisors, can advise the Trump admin till the cows come home.

 

[Chesterton]

Power of the purse and politics.

Congress has the power of the purse.

 

[Chesterton]

If they are calling themselves a "Department" which they are, that department is not constitutional. They, as advisors, can advise the Trump admin till the cows come home.

You'll notice it's not called U.S.D.O.G.E. They can call it whatever they want.

 

[DaisyDay]

Congress has the power of the purse.

So do the Super PACs:

As of December 21, 2024, 2,485 groups organized as super PACs have reported total receipts of $5,013,349,593 and total independent expenditures of $2,727,796,002 in the 2023-2024 cycle.​

Note those are trillions - quite a purse to dangle in front of politicians who are ever-hungry for campaign (and personal) dollars.

 

[RoBo1988]

First Buddy. I like that. But I don't know what problem you could have with people attempting to make your government more efficient and possibly even saving you and your family a little money in the process.

Because the left, and many on the right are determined to "burn it all down" - financially, morally, and spiritually. Making the federal government fit inside the Constitution is not part of the Democratic agenda. Bureaucrats want bigger bureaus.

 

[DaisyDay]

Because the left is determined to "burn it all down" - financially, morally, and spiritually.

Accusation in a mirror.

Making the federal government fit inside the Constitution is not part of the Democratic agenda.

It already fits. What is more dismaying are the shrinking of constitutional rights of the people and the expansion of rights of corporations.

Bureaucrats want bigger bureaus.

Some do, some don't. Blanket smears are largely inaccurate, but still smeary.

 

[RoBo1988]

How could anyone not know of such an important cultural landmark?

"Gene, Gene, the dancin' machine!"

 

[RoBo1988]

How could anyone not know of such an important cultural landmark?

"Gene, Gene, the dancin' machine!"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To be fair, there's a "super strict semantic" definition, and a contemporary, commonly-understood definition.

So, I don't know that it's fair to pounce on the anti-Trump folks for leveraging the contemporary definition to describe what their concerns are about him and his upcoming administration.

The contemporary definitions (as laid out by Merriam, and Britannica, respectively)
- a government in which a small group exercises control for corrupt and selfish purposes

- a power structure under which a small group of elite individuals, families, or corporations control a country and are related by characteristics such as wealth, family, nobility, corporate interests, religion, politics, or military power.

So, while it's true that the "super strict semantic definition" merely means "government where power rests with a small number of people"

The contemporary usage has come to mean some more things in addition to that.

It's not uncommon in political discourse for the semantically overloaded version of a word/expression to become the "shorthand" way of expressing a certain idea.


Pouncing Trump critics for that reason borders on "appeal to definition" fallacy
ex: "This restaurant is freezing" "well, actually...the temperature in here is 60 degrees, so your argument is invalid, I win" (when, in fact, everyone knew what they meant)

So, when I hear someone refer to Trump's upcoming administration as "oligarchy", I know what they mean, they're referring to a small handful of people calling the shots based on selfish reasons and aligned corporate, religious, and financial interests.

 

[Pommer]

So do the Super PACs:

As of December 21, 2024, 2,485 groups organized as super PACs have reported total receipts of $5,013,349,593 and total independent expenditures of $2,727,796,002 in the 2023-2024 cycle.​

Note those are trillions - quite a purse to dangle in front of politicians who are ever-hungry for campaign (and personal) dollars.

Thems is Billions