Trump administration removes photos of Enola Gay aircraft bc of DEI

[Moosefish]

I don't know the specifics here, but let them take it to court. I have no means of giving an informed opinion on it. Do you think that Musk cutting even more jobs is the solution? Especially when the person involved in the the lay offs had private sector interests in a less regulated FAA?

1. Jobs like the ones I referenced above are specifically not part of any layoffs

2. Musk's desires for a "less regulated FAA" specifically refers to some of its regulatory processes, which he believes hinder innovation and progress in the space industry....which has no real impact on ATC and air travel (outside of temporary no-fly areas during launches, which has never been a point of contention)

3. He does want to update ATC systems, but this is not a new issue and you'll find nobody that thinks it's not in need of a complete and total tech upgrade. Musk has specifically praised the FAA's role in making air travel safe


There is a ton of exaggeration re: Musk and the FAA. But, his stance is really no different from anybody else that wants effective safety and believes that some governmental regulations go too far and don't actually accomplish what they intend. We should encourage innovation while being as safe as possible. This shouldn't be a controversial take.


Edit: also regarding the lawsuit, I obviously don't know all the specifics. But, the proof is in the numbers: There is a shortage and there are at least 1000 highly qualified candidates that never got hired. Maybe there is another reason, but I assume we'll find out either way, eventually.

 

[55dawg]

I don't know the specifics here, but let them take it to court. I have no means of giving an informed opinion on it. Do you think that Musk cutting even more jobs is the solution? Especially when the person involved in the the lay offs has private sector interests in a less regulated FAA?

Maybe your search is too narrow if you’re only finding one side of the story.

 

[Utley1992]

Maybe your search is too narrow if you’re only finding one side of the story.

Aren't these two things unrelated?

 

[55dawg]

Aren't these two things unrelated?

Keep thinking about it.

 

[Utley1992]

Keep thinking about it.

So no

 

[Booneville Dawg]

1. Jobs like the ones I referenced above are specifically not part of any layoffs

2. Musk's desires for a "less regulated FAA" specifically refers to some of its regulatory processes, which he believes hinder innovation and progress in the space industry....which has no real impact on ATC and air travel (outside of temporary no-fly areas during launches, which has never been a point of contention)

3. He does want to update ATC systems, but this is not a new issue and you'll find nobody that thinks it's not in need of a complete and total tech upgrade. Musk has specifically praised the FAA's role in making air travel safe


There is a ton of exaggeration re: Musk and the FAA. But, his stance is really no different from anybody else that wants effective safety and believes that some governmental regulations go too far and don't actually accomplish what they intend. We should encourage innovation while being as safe as possible. This shouldn't be a controversial take.


Edit: also regarding the lawsuit, I obviously don't know all the specifics. But, the proof is in the numbers: There is a shortage and there are at least 1000 highly qualified candidates that never got hired. Maybe there is another reason, but I assume we'll find out either way, eventually.

Libs hate facts. They sure have their panties in a wad these days, particularly with the approval of the Democratic Party tanking.,

 

[Papapete11]

Some people just need to be quiet. Their stupidity just keeps showing.

 

[Utley1992]

Libs hate facts. They sure have their panties in a wad these days, particularly with the approval of the Democratic Party tanking.,

If I could get rid of 90% of the democratic party I would. Biggest thing I'll take offense too is being accused of supporting the most spineless hacks known to man

 

[Utley1992]

2. Musk's desires for a "less regulated FAA" specifically refers to some of its regulatory processes, which he believes hinder innovation and progress in the space industry..

This is where I think he biggest areas of disagreement come from. It's almost a fundamental difference in how a government should work. I think under no circumstance should a private, unelected citizen, who has no authorization, should be allowed to set regulations for a market that they benefit from. That's textbook corruption. It's regulatory capture gone to its fullest extent. You, and many on here don't see it as corruption, I don't know how you don't, but you don't. At that point I just move on from conversations like that

 

[Utley1992]

Libs hate facts. They sure have their panties in a wad these days, particularly with the approval of the Democratic Party tanking.,

Hey, don't start liking my response to that, you haven't heard of what I think of the Republicans and cops who use the punisher as their symbol. We have very different reasons for hating the democrats

 

[Moosefish]

This is where I think he biggest areas of disagreement come from. It's almost a fundamental difference in how a government should work. I think under no circumstance should a private, unelected citizen, who has no authorization, should be allowed to set regulations for a market that they benefit from. That's textbook corruption. It's regulatory capture gone to its fullest extent. You, and many on here don't see it as corruption, I don't know how you don't, but you don't. At that point I just move on from conversations like that

1. All FAA regulations are set by unelected citizens.

2. He literally has no power to do anything, as he's simply an advisor. If you're arguing influence, then I guess all donors and their private, unelected lobbyists should not be allowed access. At least there is transparency here. To me, that's the difference. Musk is not the first billionaire with influence and is absolutely not the first advisor to a POTUS with potential conflicts of interest.

3. When there is an actual regulation or law changed that benefits Musk and can be argued it was a bad change, let's discuss it. Good ideas and changes should be beneficial.....that's the point.

 

[Utley1992]

1. All FAA regulations are set by unelected citizens.

2. He literally has no power to do anything, as he's simply an advisor. If you're arguing influence, then I guess all donors and their private, unelected lobbyists should not be allowed access. At least there is transparency here. To me, that's the difference. Musk is not the first billionaire with influence and is absolutely not the first advisor to a POTUS with potential conflicts of interest.

3. When there is an actual regulation or law changed that benefits Musk and can be argued it was a bad change, let's discuss it. Good ideas and changes should be beneficial.....that's the point.

1. I'm intentionally using Musks language. I think the people that hold this country together are unelected citizens.

2. I agree that Musk isn't the first, but i don't think any should. But I agree, no donors and lobbyists should have access. And how is Elon firing anyone if he's just an advisor? How is he talking government information and putting it into private servers if he's just an advisor?


3. This again comes down to the difference in how a government should be run. I don't wait around for corruption to happen. The conflict of interests is so massive that he shouldn't be there at all

 

[CoastalVADawg]

LOL

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

This is where I think he biggest areas of disagreement come from. It's almost a fundamental difference in how a government should work. I think under no circumstance should a private, unelected citizen, who has no authorization, should be allowed to set regulations for a market that they benefit from. That's textbook corruption. It's regulatory capture gone to its fullest extent. You, and many on here don't see it as corruption, I don't know how you don't, but you don't. At that point I just move on from conversations like that

As a person that owns and operates a highly regulated business, I can promise you we'd be much better off with informed citizens with actual experience in a sector creating regs that a bunch of bureaucrats that don't know a damn thing about what they are regulating. Conflicting and confounding regs are commonplace when bureaucrats are involved.

 

[Utley1992]

As a person that owns and operates a highly regulated business, I can promise you we'd be much better off with informed citizens with actual experience in a sector creating regs that a bunch of bureaucrats that don't know a damn thing about what they are regulating. Conflicting and confounding regs are commonplace when bureaucrats are involved.

See, I also work in a highly regulated industry. By OSHA to be specific. And I disagree. The average person has no clue as to the various different aspects of why safety regulations exists. On top of that, industries regulating themselves will just lead to cutting corners

 

[Moosefish]

1. I'm intentionally using Musks language. I think the people that hold this country together are unelected citizens.

2. I agree that Musk isn't the first, but i don't think any should. But I agree, no donors and lobbyists should have access. And how is Elon firing anyone if he's just an advisor? How is he talking government information and putting it into private servers if he's just an advisor?


3. This again comes down to the difference in how a government should be run. I don't wait around for corruption to happen. The conflict of interests is so massive that he shouldn't be there at all

1. Elon hasn't fired anyone. I know for a fact that many that his team suggested were actually kept because the actual decision makers pushed back. That's the difference.

2. No government data has been "put into private servers". The reports of a private server being brought into OPM were false. The email system used by DOGE operates on government computers and does not involve a private server. This is a non-story published by either irresponsible or misinformed journalists

3. I think you're buying into false narratives based on bad information. Again, Elon can't change anything and final decisions are not made by him

4. Conflicts of interest happen, give me some time and I can find long lists from every administration. The difference with Musk (and as I've said before) is transparency. If you don't think every action taken isn't going to be heavily scrutinized regarding how it could benefit Musk, you haven't been paying attention. Is this set up different than in the past? Absolutely. But 'non-standard' is fairly standard for Trump

 

[Booneville Dawg]

Hey, don't start liking my response to that, you haven't heard of what I think of the Republicans and cops who use the punisher as their symbol. We have very different reasons for hating the democrats

Suit yourself
Si vis paceum, para bellum

 

[Utley1992]

1. Elon hasn't fired anyone. I know for a fact that many that his team suggested were actually kept because the actual decision makers pushed back. That's the difference.

2. No government data has been "put into private servers". The reports of a private server being brought into OPM were false. The email system used by DOGE operates on government computers and does not involve a private server. This is a non-story published by either irresponsible or misinformed journalists

3. I think you're buying into false narratives based on bad information. Again, Elon can't change anything and final decisions are not made by him

4. Conflicts of interest happen, give me some time and I can find long lists from every administration. The difference with Musk (and as I've said before) is transparency. If you don't think every action taken isn't going to be heavily scrutinized regarding how it could benefit Musk, you haven't been paying attention. Is this set up different than in the past? Absolutely. But 'non-standard' is fairly standard for Trump

Um, where did you get the idea Musk hasn't fired anyone?

A comprehensive look at DOGE's firings and layoffs so far

Thousands of federal government employees have been shown the door in the first month of President Donald Trump’s administration.

apnews.com

 

[Moosefish]

Um, where did you get the idea Musk hasn't fired anyone?

A comprehensive look at DOGE's firings and layoffs so far

Thousands of federal government employees have been shown the door in the first month of President Donald Trump’s administration.

apnews.com

Because he doesn't have the authority.

An article saying "DOGE" fired someone doesn't mean he did. Nothing is done w/o the agency agreeing to do so and as I said, I know for a fact that agencies can push back and not follow the recommendations, because that's what they are.

 

[Utley1992]

Because he doesn't have the authority.

An article saying "DOGE" fired someone doesn't mean he did. Nothing is done w/o the agency agreeing to do so and as I said, I know for a fact that agencies can push back and not follow the recommendations, because that's what they are.

I mean, that's a technicality if I've ever heard one. I agree that he has no actual legal authority, that doesn't change the fact that he is giving orders to lay off workers with Trumps backing. Calling them recommendations is a understating the actual issue. If musk makes the order and it's followed, he fired someone.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

See, I also work in a highly regulated industry. By OSHA to be specific. And I disagree. The average person has no clue as to the various different aspects of why safety regulations exists. On top of that, industries regulating themselves will just lead to cutting corners

Will have to agree to disagree here. If I want to weld an old fuel tank, I'm going to find someone that has welded fuel tanks to show me how to safely complete the task rather than some ditzy housewife that got a job because her husband donated a mil to some pol. I could write a book about counterproductive and conflicting regs I've seen over the yrs.

 

[Utley1992]

Will have to agree to disagree here. If I want to weld an old fuel tank, I'm going to find someone that has welded fuel tanks to show me how to safely complete the task rather than some ditzy housewife that got a job because her husband donated a mil to some pol. I could write a book about counterproductive and conflicting regs I've seen over the yrs.

This is a very simplistic take on safety regulations. Just read up on the gilded age to see what happens in an unregulated market

 

[Moosefish]

I mean, that's a technicality if I've ever heard one. I agree that he has no actual legal authority, that doesn't change the fact that he is giving orders to lay off workers with Trumps backing. Calling them recommendations is a understating the actual issue. If musk makes the order and it's followed, he fired someone.

No, it's not. That's simply false. Have most been followed? Yes. But, where I work in the DoD is absolutely being pushed back. My wife is probationary in the same building I work at and she is not losing her job....and neither are most of the probationary here.

Recommendations are being balanced with mission need. The authority rests with those actually in charge.

 

[Moosefish]

I mean, that's a technicality if I've ever heard one. I agree that he has no actual legal authority, that doesn't change the fact that he is giving orders to lay off workers with Trumps backing. Calling them recommendations is a understating the actual issue. If musk makes the order and it's followed, he fired someone.

Also, the fed workforce grew by 5% under Biden. Reducing government means rolling that number back and more. That means people are going to lose jobs and some departments are more bloated than others.

 

[Utley1992]

No, it's not. That's simply false. Have most been followed? Yes. But, where I work in the DoD is absolutely being pushed back. My wife is probationary in the same building I work at and she is not losing her job....and neither are most of the probationary here.

Recommendations are being balanced with mission need. The authority rests with those actually in charge.

I'm gonna be honest, this thread has gone on way longer than I like for arguing on the internet. Can you at least agree that there is a cause and effect between Musk's actions, and the federal layoffs that are happening?

 

[Moosefish]

I'm gonna be honest, this thread has gone on way longer than I like for arguing on the internet. Can you at least agree that there is a cause and effect between Musk's actions, and the federal layoffs that are happening?

Of course there is, even if that's an oversimplification and I fail to see the problem as I've already discussed above

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

This is a very simplistic take on safety regulations. Just read up on the gilded age to see what happens in an unregulated market

Not talking about an unregulated market. Im talking about regulators that understand how an industry actually works vs regulators that dont have a clue and tend to over regulate and many times for no other reason to regulate smaller companies out of the market.

 

[Utley1992]

Not talking about an unregulated market. Im talking about regulators that understand how an industry actually works vs regulators that dont have a clue and tend to over regulate and many times for no other reason to regulate smaller companies out of the market.

Well, I guess we agree. I don't think ajh reasonable person thinks every regulation ever is good. But most regulations are written in blood. Even if some are not needed

 

[Season of Eason]

Not even Esper said he thought Trump wanted to kill anybody. This was an off-the-cuff, moment of frustration, in the course of wanting to quell the violent and destructive riots happening across the country. Were they all violent/destructive? Of course not. But, they needed to stop and there was little success in doing so, for many reasons.

Just the insured damage alone that summer approached $2 billion. It was the costliest civil disorder event in U.S. history, which previously was the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Trump was looking for a way to stop and/or deter them from continuing.

I simply don't accept that his remark demonstrates a real desire to "kill" anybody both for the reasoning I've already given but especially because the question itself demonstrates an inherently non-lethal desire. "In the legs" clearly eliminates any reasonable argument that he wanted to "kill" anybody, even if it was theoretically a serious order that was given (nobody is claiming it was) and subsequently not followed.

Were you just as concerned when Joe Biden told donor just days before an assassination attempt "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye"?

What about Dan Goldman in an interview saying that Trump "has to be eliminated"?

Or when Maxine Waters encouraged people to "get more confrontational" with Trump administration officials and said "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them." or "I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be."

How about Chuck Schumer saying about two Justices, "You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." A guy travelled across the country to try and assassinate Kavanaugh right after those remarks.

These are all public statements. Are they disqualifying? I'm not advocating that the "shoot them in the legs" question was appropriate, even if I assume it wasn't borne of frustration over the course of a much longer cabinet meeting where Trump is trying to figure out how to stop what was happening. But, I'm also not going to accept that it demonstrates a real, legitimate desire to kill anybody.

Lord help us if every statement we've ever made in our lives was recorded for posterity and the worst of them published with or without full context for all the world to judge.

 

[Season of Eason]

No, it's not. That's simply false. Have most been followed? Yes. But, where I work in the DoD is absolutely being pushed back. My wife is probationary in the same building I work at and she is not losing her job....and neither are most of the probationary here.

Recommendations are being balanced with mission need. The authority rests with those actually in charge.

Same thing is happening at Robins AFB where I work, I have like 6 individuals who are on “probation” due to a new training position they accepted who work in our office. Not one is losing their jobs. It’s comical how people “outside the arena” are reacting to all the stuff DOGE has set forth.

 

[Utley1992]

Same thing is happening at Robins AFB where I work, I have like 6 individuals who are on “probation” due to a new training position they accepted who work in our office. Not one is losing their jobs. It’s comical how people “outside the arena” are reacting to all the stuff DOGE has set forth.

I know people in DC who are "inside the arena" who would absolutely disagree with you. Just bc it's not happening to you, doesn't mean it's not happening

 

[Moosefish]

I know people in DC who are "inside the arena" who would absolutely disagree with you. Just bc it's not happening to you, doesn't mean it's not happening

I feel for people that are losing jobs. But, a government job should never be viewed as completely secure.

I've faced 3 RIFs in my career and witnessed good people lose their jobs. Thankfully, I've managed to keep mine each time.

But, as has been overused: elections have consequences. If a job is not valued by a new administration, it's at risk. That's a fundamental truth with any large scale changes.

Our government has too much debt and things need to change or we risk financial ruin. This is just one part in an attempt to address that issue.

Private sector jobs are even more fungible. Part of public service is acknowledging that you don't have a right to said service. We all do our part and work at the will of the government, for good or ill.

 

[Utley1992]

I feel for people that are losing jobs. But, a government job should never be viewed as completely secure.

I've faced 3 RIFs in my career and witnessed good people lose their jobs. Thankfully, I've managed to keep mine each time.

But, as has been overused: elections have consequences. If a job is not valued by a new administration, it's at risk. That's a fundamental truth with any large scale changes.

Our government has too much debt and things need to change or we risk financial ruin. This is just one part in an attempt to address that issue.

Private sector jobs are even more fungible. Part of public service is acknowledging that you don't have a right to said service. We all do our part and work at the will of the government, for good or ill.

So there are people "in the arena that are critical of this?

 

[Moosefish]

So there are people "in the arena that are critical of this?

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here.

 

[Utley1992]

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here.

It’s comical how people “outside the arena” are reacting to all the stuff DOGE has set forth.

I was responding to this. I know plenty of people who are absolutely "in the arena" that have very critical takes of DOGE.

 

[willdup]

What implications? No actions took place, nobody was shot. Composure doesn't mean never getting frustrated or making an off-the-cuff remark....and technically 'shooting in the leg' is not a desire to murder anybody.

Can you acknowledge that Trump’s complete lack of remorse and revisionist history regarding the 130 LEOs who were injured, some quite badly, on J6 represents a meaningful piece of data regarding what Trump is willing to do in the future?

His language has been clear for several years. Rioters were warriors and heroes and the real victims of that day. He pardoned all of them, including people convicted of serious violent felonies based on video evidence. He hasn’t qualified his language or delineated between violent or nonviolent for a long time now and certainly not as he issued his blanket pardons.

If you can find one positive mention of the injured police from Trump in any of the discussion of these pardons, or even since he took office, I’d love to see it.

So I think suggesting that just because nobody was shot on Trump’s orders last time is not much of a defense of what could happen in the future. Esper was a SOD who pushed back and Hegseth, arguably, is not.

I’m going to make a prediction right now and please bookmark it. We will have our Kent State moment during this administration. The question is, how will the country respond when it happens?

 

[Moosefish]

I was responding to this. I know plenty of people who are absolutely "in the arena" that have very critical takes of DOGE.

Got it. Of course people are critical...either their service is no longer valued and/or they disagreee witht the approach.

I've disagreed with plenty across the 5 administrations I've served under. I think his point was that there is plenty of bad information out there and misleading narratives that have taken root.

Or maybe not, but that was my take.

 

[Moosefish]

Can you acknowledge that Trump’s complete lack of remorse and revisionist history regarding the 130 LEOs who were injured, some quite badly, on J6 represents a meaningful piece of data regarding what Trump is willing to do in the future?

His language has been clear for several years. Rioters were warriors and heroes and the real victims of that day. He pardoned all of them, including people convicted of serious violent felonies based on video evidence. He hasn’t qualified his language or delineated between violent or nonviolent for a long time now and certainly not as he issued his blanket pardons.

If you can find one positive mention of the injured police from Trump in any of the discussion of these pardons, or even since he took office, I’d love to see it.

So I think suggesting that just because nobody was shot on Trump’s orders last time is not much of a defense of what could happen in the future. Esper was a SOD who pushed back and Hegseth, arguably, is not.

I’m going to make a prediction right now and please bookmark it. We will have our Kent State moment during this administration. The question is, how will the country respond when it happens?

Man, you are attempting to shoehorn J6 into a completely different subject. We can discuss it later, but I have neither the time nor desire to do so right now. Let me collect all my thoughts.

I will, but please be prepared for a novel, just like my NATO post I'm working on.

 

[willdup]

Man, you are attempting to shoehorn J6 into a completely different subject. We can discuss it later, but I have neither the time nor desire to do so right now. Let me collect all my thoughts.

I will, but please be prepared for a novel, just like my NATO post I'm working on.

Any consideration of Trump’s willingness to use violence to achieve his aims (which I thought you were discussing) without including J6 in the discussion is ignoring the single most notable and well documented proof point.

I’ll await the novel and avoid opening it until I have time to consider and respond. Honestly, I’ll be fascinated to hear your take on the pardons, Trumps language about J6 and what you think is significant or not about what those tell us.

 

[Moosefish]

Any consideration of Trump’s willingness to use violence to achieve his aims (which I thought you were discussing) without including J6 in the discussion is ignoring the single most notable and well documented proof point.

I’ll await the novel and avoid opening it until I have time to consider and respond. Honestly, I’ll be fascinated to hear your take on the pardons, Trumps language about J6 and what you think is significant or not about what those tell us.

I think we disagree on a lot (including your "...willingness to use violence..." note), but an off hand remark that I've already discussed thoroughly in this thread is not the best place to start that discussion, imo.

I mostly disagree with a lot of your framing. But, I hope to address a lot of it, at some point. Having to address J6 in any other thread where you respond to me only slows me down, so I'm going to ignore it 😆