BANNED USER: /comment/457513
>Unban in 0d 19h 00m
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
No bio...
User ID: 1226
Banned by: @netstack
Congress can only insulate executive branch employees from Presidential termination some of the time and those circumstances do not depend on the wording of the statute or anything else Congress has any control over.
It seems fairly obvious to me that the distinguishing feature here is that the conservatives are okay with eliminating FTC independence because they think financial crimes and sweeping expansion of executive power are cool and they are not okay with eliminating Fed independence because they know Trump is retarded and will crash the economy if he is able to dictate US monetary policy. I'm sure you can torture the question enough to come up with something that approximates coherent legal reasoning if you squint, but I doubt anyone thinks that is going on here.
Foreign influence ops are a thing, but when it comes to lackluster public support for US military activity abroad, you don't need to be looking at foreign influence. You need to be looking at the way the USG has handled building support for military intervention. It mostly hasn't, and the last big effort to do so (Iraq) turned out to be predicated on a great big lie.
American adversaries have figured out that Americans have very limited patience or pain tolerance; their response has been to dig in and try to make dealing with them as painful as possible.
Nobody has forgotten. They have been correctly pointing out that it really does not matter what you are theoretically capable of if you lack the will to do it, while there's been a cadre of people coping for military failure by saying "yeah, but we could fuck them up if we really wanted to, we're just too nice."
More options
Context Copy link