[dabigv13]

If Terry or any admins think my post is out of line I'll happily delete it. But as oregontim pointed out, Trump and the rest of the grifters and enablers he has running our government are a gigantic reason that covid is out of control here.

Goose, what you are describing is not how our government should work or has worked. I sincerely doubt any previous administrations had army labs testing plant extracts on the advice of a presidents' rich donor/pillow salesman. If an aide told an aide about it, it was probably squelched by a lawyer or other aide as unethical or illegal or absurd. Or if it reached the stage of the lab, the lab director would just say no, that makes no sense, we're not wasting our resources in a pandemic on testing snake oil. But because Trump has gutted any independence from executive branch agencies, nobody will say no. We will need a post-Nixon level refresh of our government institutions once Trump is gone. Hope there is time, considering recovering from the pandemic and recession will be obvious priorities.

[dabigv13]

If Terry or any admins think my post is out of line I'll happily delete it. But as oregontim pointed out, Trump and the rest of the grifters and enablers he has running our government are a gigantic reason that covid is out of control here.

Goose, what you are describing is not how our government should work or has worked. I sincerely doubt any previous administrations had army labs testing plant extracts on the advice of a presidents' rich donor/pillow salesman. If an aide told an aide about it, it was probably squelched by a lawyer or other aide as unethical or illegal or absurd. Or if it reached the stage of the lab, the lab director would just say no, that makes no sense, we're not wasting our resources in a pandemic on testing snake oil. But because Trump has gutted any independence from executive branch agencies, nobody will say no. We will need a post-Nixon level refresh of our government institutions once Trump is gone. Hope there is time, considering recovering from the pandemic and recession will be obvious priorities.

[BostonCard]

Why did they even start trials on this? Was it at direction of Trump or his appointees? Goose will tell me soon this is just all how a normal functioning democracy is supposed to work, and the fact the Army stopped testing the snake oil is evidence things are working just fine.

This MF Trump needs to go to jail just like all of his associates. They're all corrupt grifters, and I cannot wait for all the dirt to spill out once he leaves office.

Waiting for the Terry rule claim.  Oh right, it's anti-Trump (crickets).

Point of parliamentary clarification: Terry's rule doesn't say that one cannot discuss politics (pro or anti-Trump, or, for that matter any other politician).  The rule is that one cannot discuss politics outside of the context of COVID-19.  I looked at every post in this thread.  Although they are universally anti-Trump, including my own post starting the thread, all the posts that mention Trump mention him in the context of either COVID-19, his response to the pandemic, or his endorsements or alleged cures for COVID-19.

If you want a pro-Trump comment in there for balance, you can point to Operation Warp Speed as a model of how to speed up development of a vaccine.  If we get a vaccine out of it in the next 12 months (either before or after Nov) I think it would be perfectly appropriate to cite Trump's encouragement. 

BC

[BostonCard]

Why did they even start trials on this? Was it at direction of Trump or his appointees? Goose will tell me soon this is just all how a normal functioning democracy is supposed to work, and the fact the Army stopped testing the snake oil is evidence things are working just fine.

This MF Trump needs to go to jail just like all of his associates. They're all corrupt grifters, and I cannot wait for all the dirt to spill out once he leaves office.

Waiting for the Terry rule claim.  Oh right, it's anti-Trump (crickets).

Point of parliamentary clarification: Terry's rule doesn't say that one cannot discuss politics (pro or anti-Trump, or, for that matter any other politician).  The rule is that one cannot discuss politics outside of the context of COVID-19.  I looked at every post in this thread.  Although they are universally anti-Trump, including my own post starting the thread, all the posts that mention Trump mention him in the context of either COVID-19, his response to the pandemic, or his endorsements or alleged cures for COVID-19.

If you want a pro-Trump comment in there for balance, you can point to Operation Warp Speed as a model of how to speed up development of a vaccine.  If we get a vaccine out of it in the next 12 months (either before or after Nov) I think it would be perfectly appropriate to cite Trump's encouragement. 

BC

[teejers1]

Why did they even start trials on this? Was it at direction of Trump or his appointees? Goose will tell me soon this is just all how a normal functioning democracy is supposed to work, and the fact the Army stopped testing the snake oil is evidence things are working just fine.

This MF Trump needs to go to jail just like all of his associates. They're all corrupt grifters, and I cannot wait for all the dirt to spill out once he leaves office.

Waiting for the Terry rule claim.  Oh right, it's anti-Trump (crickets).

Point of parliamentary clarification: Terry's rule doesn't say that one cannot discuss politics (pro or anti-Trump, or, for that matter any other politician).  The rule is that one cannot discuss politics outside of the context of COVID-19.  I looked at every post in this thread.  Although they are universally anti-Trump, including my own post starting the thread, all the posts that mention Trump mention him in the context of either COVID-19, his response to the pandemic, or his endorsements or alleged cures for COVID-19.

If you want a pro-Trump comment in there for balance, you can point to Operation Warp Speed as a model of how to speed up development of a vaccine.  If we get a vaccine out of it in the next 12 months (either before or after Nov) I think it would be perfectly appropriate to cite Trump's encouragement. 

BC

The anti-politics rule is silly on this or any other forum of Stanford fans - who are all big boys and girls who can intellectually fend for themselves, without getting their tighty whiteys/panties in a bunch.  Hell, the rule should be revoked solely for running garvin, IIRC, (and redrum?) off the board.

But it's also just precious that politics are "allowed" on the Covid board because . . . well, because all of the political commentary starts and ends with Trump being an idiot and enabler!  (And I have no problem with the rips because he deserves it in 90+% of the instances we see here).

Still, that's a pretty nifty "rule" for those sensitive to political commentary that might . . . what? . . . hurt their feelings?

[teejers1]

Why did they even start trials on this? Was it at direction of Trump or his appointees? Goose will tell me soon this is just all how a normal functioning democracy is supposed to work, and the fact the Army stopped testing the snake oil is evidence things are working just fine.

This MF Trump needs to go to jail just like all of his associates. They're all corrupt grifters, and I cannot wait for all the dirt to spill out once he leaves office.

Waiting for the Terry rule claim.  Oh right, it's anti-Trump (crickets).

Point of parliamentary clarification: Terry's rule doesn't say that one cannot discuss politics (pro or anti-Trump, or, for that matter any other politician).  The rule is that one cannot discuss politics outside of the context of COVID-19.  I looked at every post in this thread.  Although they are universally anti-Trump, including my own post starting the thread, all the posts that mention Trump mention him in the context of either COVID-19, his response to the pandemic, or his endorsements or alleged cures for COVID-19.

If you want a pro-Trump comment in there for balance, you can point to Operation Warp Speed as a model of how to speed up development of a vaccine.  If we get a vaccine out of it in the next 12 months (either before or after Nov) I think it would be perfectly appropriate to cite Trump's encouragement. 

BC

The anti-politics rule is silly on this or any other forum of Stanford fans - who are all big boys and girls who can intellectually fend for themselves, without getting their tighty whiteys/panties in a bunch.  Hell, the rule should be revoked solely for running garvin, IIRC, (and redrum?) off the board.

But it's also just precious that politics are "allowed" on the Covid board because . . . well, because all of the political commentary starts and ends with Trump being an idiot and enabler!  (And I have no problem with the rips because he deserves it in 90+% of the instances we see here).

Still, that's a pretty nifty "rule" for those sensitive to political commentary that might . . . what? . . . hurt their feelings?

[dabigv13]

In paragraph three of your post, you talk about hurt feelings, while in paragraph one lamenting that garvin left. Garvin is a great guy, incidental to my point, and I wish he'd come back. I own his very good book on Nicaragua. But these points are in tension to me because leaving an internet sports board forever because of an intention to limit political asides (implemented IIRC because of some pretty racially insensitive posts, that were NOT made by garvin to clarify), that's sort of the ultimate panties in a bunch move.

[dabigv13]

In paragraph three of your post, you talk about hurt feelings, while in paragraph one lamenting that garvin left. Garvin is a great guy, incidental to my point, and I wish he'd come back. I own his very good book on Nicaragua. But these points are in tension to me because leaving an internet sports board forever because of an intention to limit political asides (implemented IIRC because of some pretty racially insensitive posts, that were NOT made by garvin to clarify), that's sort of the ultimate panties in a bunch move.

[Mick]

that's sort of the ultimate panties in a bunch move.

It's interesting how no one ever changes someone else's mind on the Internet.

[Mick]

that's sort of the ultimate panties in a bunch move.

It's interesting how no one ever changes someone else's mind on the Internet.

[dabigv13]

Right. Which is why avoiding politics on a sports board makes sense. Unfortunately politics can't be divorced from covid. Very unfortunately.

[dabigv13]

Right. Which is why avoiding politics on a sports board makes sense. Unfortunately politics can't be divorced from covid. Very unfortunately.

[BostonCard]

But it's also just precious that politics are "allowed" on the Covid board because . . . well, because all of the political commentary starts and ends with Trump being an idiot and enabler!  (And I have no problem with the rips because he deserves it in 90+% of the instances we see here).

You can criticize Democratic politicians if you want:
"Cuomo was an idiot for sending convalescing COVID-19 patients to nursing homes" (monumentally bad policy)
"Gavin Newsom mistakenly prioritized opening bars and restaurants over schools" (true)
"Gretchen Whitmer should have opened up Michigan earlier" (I disagree, but it doesn't run afoul of the Terry rule)

Come January 2021, depending on the election outcome, you could say:
"See, Biden is no better than Trump"

All of that is "political" but none of it violates the Terry rule.  Yes, this board is harsh on Trump.  Part of the volume is because he is President; were this to have occurred during Obama's tenure, there would be a lot of posts about Obama and the pandemic.

BC

[BostonCard]

But it's also just precious that politics are "allowed" on the Covid board because . . . well, because all of the political commentary starts and ends with Trump being an idiot and enabler!  (And I have no problem with the rips because he deserves it in 90+% of the instances we see here).

You can criticize Democratic politicians if you want:
"Cuomo was an idiot for sending convalescing COVID-19 patients to nursing homes" (monumentally bad policy)
"Gavin Newsom mistakenly prioritized opening bars and restaurants over schools" (true)
"Gretchen Whitmer should have opened up Michigan earlier" (I disagree, but it doesn't run afoul of the Terry rule)

Come January 2021, depending on the election outcome, you could say:
"See, Biden is no better than Trump"

All of that is "political" but none of it violates the Terry rule.  Yes, this board is harsh on Trump.  Part of the volume is because he is President; were this to have occurred during Obama's tenure, there would be a lot of posts about Obama and the pandemic.

BC

[Goose]

Goose, what you are describing is not how our government should work or has worked. I sincerely doubt any previous administrations had army labs testing plant extracts on the advice of a presidents' rich donor/pillow salesman.

Dabigv13, take a step back and look at your statement. You are obviously influenced by the fact the suggestion came from "a presidents' rich donor/pillow salesman'. The people asked to look in to something like this don't know where the idea came from, and they mostly don't care. They just know they were supposed to look into it, and I assure you that under any administration, they would do so.

If an aide told an aide about it, it was probably squelched by a lawyer or other aide as unethical or illegal or absurd.

Please tell me what is illegal or unethical about looking at a possible drug to see if it is useful? It may be absurd, but I know for a fact that lots of things are sent to government labs to opine on that appear to be absurd. The functionaries don't usually make that choice. Consider the idea of using dolphins to locate mines. Sound absurd initially, but we do it.

Or if it reached the stage of the lab, the lab director would just say no, that makes no sense, we're not wasting our resources in a pandemic on testing snake oil.

No he wouldn't. He would have some low-level person in the lab write a report saying they looked at it and see no plausible means of action. Hopefully, that will bury it. If it doesn't bury it, they will probably actually look into it, even though it appears to be absurd. The fact this was being done by an Army lab indicates to me that it got dumped way down the priority list to people who had available time.

But because Trump has gutted any independence from executive branch agencies, nobody will say no. We will need a post-Nixon level refresh of our government institutions once Trump is gone. Hope there is time, considering recovering from the pandemic and recession will be obvious priorities.

Executive branch agencies aren't independent. They report to the POTUS. You don't just say no, unless it is illegal. Just like in you day job, you boss may sometimes tell you to do things that you think are stupid. You point that out to your boss, and if he says do it anyway, you either do it or you quit. In all organizations, there is a balance between the leaders and the led. Organizations like the FDA are given lots of latitude to police themselves, and no president would like to get "caught" meddling in the FDA's decision making process. However, the fact is the POTUS does have influence. Always has. Other organizations, like HHS, are more command driven. There is an agenda and you follow it.
Good presidents, like all good managers, try to hire good people whose judgement they trust. If a lab head reports back that an idea is absurd, the POTUS will say, OK, thanks for looking and move on. You give your subordinates parameters and trust them to execute within them. It has never been true that the departments in the executive branch just did what they thought was best for the country and who cares what our superiors think.
The problem isn't that the POTUS is the boss. The problem is that the boss is an idiot and tells people to do too many stupid things. Lots of them have quit. Most won't take the job from Trump. However, that isn't because the structure is broken. It is because the leader is broken.

[Goose]

Goose, what you are describing is not how our government should work or has worked. I sincerely doubt any previous administrations had army labs testing plant extracts on the advice of a presidents' rich donor/pillow salesman.

Dabigv13, take a step back and look at your statement. You are obviously influenced by the fact the suggestion came from "a presidents' rich donor/pillow salesman'. The people asked to look in to something like this don't know where the idea came from, and they mostly don't care. They just know they were supposed to look into it, and I assure you that under any administration, they would do so.

If an aide told an aide about it, it was probably squelched by a lawyer or other aide as unethical or illegal or absurd.

Please tell me what is illegal or unethical about looking at a possible drug to see if it is useful? It may be absurd, but I know for a fact that lots of things are sent to government labs to opine on that appear to be absurd. The functionaries don't usually make that choice. Consider the idea of using dolphins to locate mines. Sound absurd initially, but we do it.

Or if it reached the stage of the lab, the lab director would just say no, that makes no sense, we're not wasting our resources in a pandemic on testing snake oil.

No he wouldn't. He would have some low-level person in the lab write a report saying they looked at it and see no plausible means of action. Hopefully, that will bury it. If it doesn't bury it, they will probably actually look into it, even though it appears to be absurd. The fact this was being done by an Army lab indicates to me that it got dumped way down the priority list to people who had available time.

But because Trump has gutted any independence from executive branch agencies, nobody will say no. We will need a post-Nixon level refresh of our government institutions once Trump is gone. Hope there is time, considering recovering from the pandemic and recession will be obvious priorities.

Executive branch agencies aren't independent. They report to the POTUS. You don't just say no, unless it is illegal. Just like in you day job, you boss may sometimes tell you to do things that you think are stupid. You point that out to your boss, and if he says do it anyway, you either do it or you quit. In all organizations, there is a balance between the leaders and the led. Organizations like the FDA are given lots of latitude to police themselves, and no president would like to get "caught" meddling in the FDA's decision making process. However, the fact is the POTUS does have influence. Always has. Other organizations, like HHS, are more command driven. There is an agenda and you follow it.
Good presidents, like all good managers, try to hire good people whose judgement they trust. If a lab head reports back that an idea is absurd, the POTUS will say, OK, thanks for looking and move on. You give your subordinates parameters and trust them to execute within them. It has never been true that the departments in the executive branch just did what they thought was best for the country and who cares what our superiors think.
The problem isn't that the POTUS is the boss. The problem is that the boss is an idiot and tells people to do too many stupid things. Lots of them have quit. Most won't take the job from Trump. However, that isn't because the structure is broken. It is because the leader is broken.

[dabigv13]

Seems you believe in a truly unitary executive, where POTUS is nearly a king. This is how Barr and Trump certainly see it and why they have dispensed of the Senate's role to advise and consent. So we have unqualified people running things beholden only to POTUS. And so we end up with lackeys forcing through experiments on oleander.

No prior admin has functioned like this. This admin is historically unique, at least in the modern era, in the way it has expanded executive power. No other admin has had this many acting functionaries, or left so many jobs unfilled (even as his party controls the senate).

You are arguing for how you think government should be run, not how it has been run. But, as previously mentioned, this is the internet so no minds will be changed by these posts....

[dabigv13]

Seems you believe in a truly unitary executive, where POTUS is nearly a king. This is how Barr and Trump certainly see it and why they have dispensed of the Senate's role to advise and consent. So we have unqualified people running things beholden only to POTUS. And so we end up with lackeys forcing through experiments on oleander.

No prior admin has functioned like this. This admin is historically unique, at least in the modern era, in the way it has expanded executive power. No other admin has had this many acting functionaries, or left so many jobs unfilled (even as his party controls the senate).

You are arguing for how you think government should be run, not how it has been run. But, as previously mentioned, this is the internet so no minds will be changed by these posts....

[oregontim]

Ok, obviously this should be over in the humor thread, but it seems so apropos to this one...



(With apologies to the original artist ... it's all over the web, not clear whose copyright ... certainly not my work.)

[oregontim]

Ok, obviously this should be over in the humor thread, but it seems so apropos to this one...



(With apologies to the original artist ... it's all over the web, not clear whose copyright ... certainly not my work.)

[BostonCard]

Xkcd is the original artist.

BC

[BostonCard]

Xkcd is the original artist.

BC

[oregontim]

Xkcd is the original artist.

BC

Thanks BC ... and Kudos to Xkcd.

[oregontim]

Xkcd is the original artist.

BC

Thanks BC ... and Kudos to Xkcd.

[DocSavage87]

Executive branch agencies aren't independent. They report to the POTUS. You don't just say no, unless it is illegal. Just like in you day job, you boss may sometimes tell you to do things that you think are stupid. You point that out to your boss, and if he says do it anyway, you either do it or you quit. In all organizations, there is a balance between the leaders and the led. Organizations like the FDA are given lots of latitude to police themselves, and no president would like to get "caught" meddling in the FDA's decision making process. However, the fact is the POTUS does have influence. Always has. Other organizations, like HHS, are more command driven. There is an agenda and you follow it.
Good presidents, like all good managers, try to hire good people whose judgement they trust. If a lab head reports back that an idea is absurd, the POTUS will say, OK, thanks for looking and move on. You give your subordinates parameters and trust them to execute within them. It has never been true that the departments in the executive branch just did what they thought was best for the country and who cares what our superiors think.
The problem isn't that the POTUS is the boss. The problem is that the boss is an idiot and tells people to do too many stupid things. Lots of them have quit. Most won't take the job from Trump. However, that isn't because the structure is broken. It is because the leader is broken.

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule. In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well. I didn't know that before I googled it.

[DocSavage87]

Executive branch agencies aren't independent. They report to the POTUS. You don't just say no, unless it is illegal. Just like in you day job, you boss may sometimes tell you to do things that you think are stupid. You point that out to your boss, and if he says do it anyway, you either do it or you quit. In all organizations, there is a balance between the leaders and the led. Organizations like the FDA are given lots of latitude to police themselves, and no president would like to get "caught" meddling in the FDA's decision making process. However, the fact is the POTUS does have influence. Always has. Other organizations, like HHS, are more command driven. There is an agenda and you follow it.
Good presidents, like all good managers, try to hire good people whose judgement they trust. If a lab head reports back that an idea is absurd, the POTUS will say, OK, thanks for looking and move on. You give your subordinates parameters and trust them to execute within them. It has never been true that the departments in the executive branch just did what they thought was best for the country and who cares what our superiors think.
The problem isn't that the POTUS is the boss. The problem is that the boss is an idiot and tells people to do too many stupid things. Lots of them have quit. Most won't take the job from Trump. However, that isn't because the structure is broken. It is because the leader is broken.

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule. In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well. I didn't know that before I googled it.

[2006alum]

[2006alum]

[teejers1]

In paragraph three of your post, you talk about hurt feelings, while in paragraph one lamenting that garvin left. Garvin is a great guy, incidental to my point, and I wish he'd come back. I own his very good book on Nicaragua. But these points are in tension to me because leaving an internet sports board forever because of an intention to limit political asides (implemented IIRC because of some pretty racially insensitive posts, that were NOT made by garvin to clarify), that's sort of the ultimate panties in a bunch move.

So, to you there is no principled difference between stifling commentary versus allowing commentary (particularly among bright adults)?  
People upset by either equally have their panties in a bunch?  

Hmm.

But hey, it's the Internet, so no need to expect anyone to change minds.

[teejers1]

In paragraph three of your post, you talk about hurt feelings, while in paragraph one lamenting that garvin left. Garvin is a great guy, incidental to my point, and I wish he'd come back. I own his very good book on Nicaragua. But these points are in tension to me because leaving an internet sports board forever because of an intention to limit political asides (implemented IIRC because of some pretty racially insensitive posts, that were NOT made by garvin to clarify), that's sort of the ultimate panties in a bunch move.

So, to you there is no principled difference between stifling commentary versus allowing commentary (particularly among bright adults)?  
People upset by either equally have their panties in a bunch?  

Hmm.

But hey, it's the Internet, so no need to expect anyone to change minds.

[Goose]

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule.  In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well.  I didn't know that before I googled it.

I agree that we have relied on "norms" to ensure rational actions by the POTUS. We also relied on the voters not to elect a POTUS that would violate norms and reasonable management principles at will. Indeed, we all also assumed that if the POTUS was a habitual liar and engaged in behavior that was manifestly harmful to the country, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. Even more unfortunately it is also not a for sure thing that the POTUS will be defeated in the upcoming election.
However, I don't think the structure can be changed to avoid this type of situation. I am willing to listen, but I believe no executive branch can run well without a CEO, and that CEO can't be in a position where half his employees are doing their own thing. I certainly don't mean a CEO that is all-powerful. The POTUS has a Board of Directors (Congress) and a bunch of stockholders (citizens) who can remove him when his conduct as a CEO is outside the norms. We have had many presidents who perhaps pushed the envelope of acceptable management behavior. However, what we see now is beyond anything we have ever seen before, IMHO.
IMHO there is no substitute for an informed, involved citizenry and an effective, vigilant Congress. Every government that has attempted to significantly avoid a chief executive with considerable power has come to grief, AFAIK. Passing laws and added layers of oversight just bogs down the government. If it is run by an unprincipled idiot, things will go badly until said idiot is replaced, no matter how the organization is gerrymandered.

[Goose]

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule.  In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well.  I didn't know that before I googled it.

I agree that we have relied on "norms" to ensure rational actions by the POTUS. We also relied on the voters not to elect a POTUS that would violate norms and reasonable management principles at will. Indeed, we all also assumed that if the POTUS was a habitual liar and engaged in behavior that was manifestly harmful to the country, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. Even more unfortunately it is also not a for sure thing that the POTUS will be defeated in the upcoming election.
However, I don't think the structure can be changed to avoid this type of situation. I am willing to listen, but I believe no executive branch can run well without a CEO, and that CEO can't be in a position where half his employees are doing their own thing. I certainly don't mean a CEO that is all-powerful. The POTUS has a Board of Directors (Congress) and a bunch of stockholders (citizens) who can remove him when his conduct as a CEO is outside the norms. We have had many presidents who perhaps pushed the envelope of acceptable management behavior. However, what we see now is beyond anything we have ever seen before, IMHO.
IMHO there is no substitute for an informed, involved citizenry and an effective, vigilant Congress. Every government that has attempted to significantly avoid a chief executive with considerable power has come to grief, AFAIK. Passing laws and added layers of oversight just bogs down the government. If it is run by an unprincipled idiot, things will go badly until said idiot is replaced, no matter how the organization is gerrymandered.

[DocSavage87]

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule.  In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well.  I didn't know that before I googled it.

I agree that we have relied on "norms" to ensure rational actions by the POTUS. We also relied on the voters not to elect a POTUS that would violate norms and reasonable management principles at will. Indeed, we all also assumed that if the POTUS was a habitual liar and engaged in behavior that was manifestly harmful to the country, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. Even more unfortunately it is also not a for sure thing that the POTUS will be defeated in the upcoming election.
However, I don't think the structure can be changed to avoid this type of situation.

Sure the structure can be changed to help mitigate this type of situation.  The CEO analogy is very flawed because no CEO controls the police, the prosecutor's office, the SEC, etc.  Companies are constrained because the checks on it are external and cannot be corrupted by a corrupt CEO -- well, unless he's a super-villain.  POTUS has too much power.  He shouldn't be able to fire IGs or other instruments of oversight.  He shouldn't be above the law or as argued by his lawyers -- immune even from investigation.   There is a real worry that if hospital data flows not to CDC but to some orchestrated system, the data won't be used legitimately but for political spin much as one of the quants working on Florida's COVID-19 website had accused that state's executives.

[DocSavage87]

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule.  In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well.  I didn't know that before I googled it.

I agree that we have relied on "norms" to ensure rational actions by the POTUS. We also relied on the voters not to elect a POTUS that would violate norms and reasonable management principles at will. Indeed, we all also assumed that if the POTUS was a habitual liar and engaged in behavior that was manifestly harmful to the country, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. Even more unfortunately it is also not a for sure thing that the POTUS will be defeated in the upcoming election.
However, I don't think the structure can be changed to avoid this type of situation.

Sure the structure can be changed to help mitigate this type of situation.  The CEO analogy is very flawed because no CEO controls the police, the prosecutor's office, the SEC, etc.  Companies are constrained because the checks on it are external and cannot be corrupted by a corrupt CEO -- well, unless he's a super-villain.  POTUS has too much power.  He shouldn't be able to fire IGs or other instruments of oversight.  He shouldn't be above the law or as argued by his lawyers -- immune even from investigation.   There is a real worry that if hospital data flows not to CDC but to some orchestrated system, the data won't be used legitimately but for political spin much as one of the quants working on Florida's COVID-19 website had accused that state's executives.

[lex24]

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule.  In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well.  I didn't know that before I googled it.

I agree that we have relied on "norms" to ensure rational actions by the POTUS. We also relied on the voters not to elect a POTUS that would violate norms and reasonable management principles at will. Indeed, we all also assumed that if the POTUS was a habitual liar and engaged in behavior that was manifestly harmful to the country, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. Even more unfortunately it is also not a for sure thing that the POTUS will be defeated in the upcoming election.
However, I don't think the structure can be changed to avoid this type of situation.

Sure the structure can be changed to help mitigate this type of situation.  The CEO analogy is very flawed because no CEO controls the police, the prosecutor's office, the SEC, etc.  Companies are constrained because the checks on it are external and cannot be corrupted by a corrupt CEO -- well, unless he's a super-villain.  POTUS has too much power.  He shouldn't be able to fire IGs or other instruments of oversight.  He shouldn't be above the law or as argued by his lawyers -- immune even from investigation.   There is a real worry that if hospital data flows not to CDC but to some orchestrated system, the data won't be used legitimately but for political spin much as one of the quants working on Florida's COVID-19 website had accused that state's executives.

Actually, he was impeached.  And he certainly has not been immune from investigations.  I don’t believe any President has been as investigated as Trump. 

IMO the problem isn’t so much the power of the Executive, it is the fecklessness of Congress. Driven by uber partisanship. 2016 should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t.  Congress, in its inability to compromise, has as a result ceded much of its power to the Executive.  Leading, among other things, to the rise of Executive Orders.  Consider this Reagan’s ‘ 86 tax reform bill was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostenkowsi.  It passed with bipartisan support. Both Obama (ACA) and Trumps (tax reform) biggest legislative victories passed purely on party lines. Which of course means when you have a change of party in the White House they simply try to undo the legislation. Trump and the Republicans have tried it with the ACA and if Biden wins he and the Democrats will try the same thing with tax reform.

[lex24]

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule.  In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well.  I didn't know that before I googled it.

I agree that we have relied on "norms" to ensure rational actions by the POTUS. We also relied on the voters not to elect a POTUS that would violate norms and reasonable management principles at will. Indeed, we all also assumed that if the POTUS was a habitual liar and engaged in behavior that was manifestly harmful to the country, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. Even more unfortunately it is also not a for sure thing that the POTUS will be defeated in the upcoming election.
However, I don't think the structure can be changed to avoid this type of situation.

Sure the structure can be changed to help mitigate this type of situation.  The CEO analogy is very flawed because no CEO controls the police, the prosecutor's office, the SEC, etc.  Companies are constrained because the checks on it are external and cannot be corrupted by a corrupt CEO -- well, unless he's a super-villain.  POTUS has too much power.  He shouldn't be able to fire IGs or other instruments of oversight.  He shouldn't be above the law or as argued by his lawyers -- immune even from investigation.   There is a real worry that if hospital data flows not to CDC but to some orchestrated system, the data won't be used legitimately but for political spin much as one of the quants working on Florida's COVID-19 website had accused that state's executives.

Actually, he was impeached.  And he certainly has not been immune from investigations.  I don’t believe any President has been as investigated as Trump. 

IMO the problem isn’t so much the power of the Executive, it is the fecklessness of Congress. Driven by uber partisanship. 2016 should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t.  Congress, in its inability to compromise, has as a result ceded much of its power to the Executive.  Leading, among other things, to the rise of Executive Orders.  Consider this Reagan’s ‘ 86 tax reform bill was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostenkowsi.  It passed with bipartisan support. Both Obama (ACA) and Trumps (tax reform) biggest legislative victories passed purely on party lines. Which of course means when you have a change of party in the White House they simply try to undo the legislation. Trump and the Republicans have tried it with the ACA and if Biden wins he and the Democrats will try the same thing with tax reform.

[BostonCard]

Actually, he was impeached.  And he certainly has not been immune from investigations.  I don’t believe any President has been as investigated as Trump. 

IMO the problem isn’t so much the power of the Executive, it is the fecklessness of Congress. Driven by uber partisanship. 2016 should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t.  Congress, in its inability to compromise, has as a result ceded much of its power to the Executive.  Leading, among other things, to the rise of Executive Orders.  Consider this Reagan’s ‘ 86 tax reform bill was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostenkowsi.  It passed with bipartisan support. Both Obama (ACA) and Trumps (tax reform) biggest legislative victories passed purely on party lines. Which of course means when you have a change of party in the White House they simply try to undo the legislation. Trump and the Republicans have tried it with the ACA and if Biden wins he and the Democrats will try the same thing with tax reform.

Of all the things Trump has done his Presidency, passing a tax cut is about the most "normal" thing he's done (at least as a Republican).  I guarantee you that a President Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or John Kasich would have done something quite similar.

And, given that the government's varying fiscal situation, taxes go up and taxes go down.  I'll remind you that after the Reagan tax cut, it was George HW Bush (and later Bill Clinton) who raised taxes when it became clear that that tax cuts did not, in fact, pay for themselves and deficits continued to rise.  When Clinton's tax increases produced surpluses, it was a surprise to exactly no one that his successor would take advantage of the favorable fiscal situation to cut them again.

BC

[BostonCard]

Actually, he was impeached.  And he certainly has not been immune from investigations.  I don’t believe any President has been as investigated as Trump. 

IMO the problem isn’t so much the power of the Executive, it is the fecklessness of Congress. Driven by uber partisanship. 2016 should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t.  Congress, in its inability to compromise, has as a result ceded much of its power to the Executive.  Leading, among other things, to the rise of Executive Orders.  Consider this Reagan’s ‘ 86 tax reform bill was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostenkowsi.  It passed with bipartisan support. Both Obama (ACA) and Trumps (tax reform) biggest legislative victories passed purely on party lines. Which of course means when you have a change of party in the White House they simply try to undo the legislation. Trump and the Republicans have tried it with the ACA and if Biden wins he and the Democrats will try the same thing with tax reform.

Of all the things Trump has done his Presidency, passing a tax cut is about the most "normal" thing he's done (at least as a Republican).  I guarantee you that a President Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or John Kasich would have done something quite similar.

And, given that the government's varying fiscal situation, taxes go up and taxes go down.  I'll remind you that after the Reagan tax cut, it was George HW Bush (and later Bill Clinton) who raised taxes when it became clear that that tax cuts did not, in fact, pay for themselves and deficits continued to rise.  When Clinton's tax increases produced surpluses, it was a surprise to exactly no one that his successor would take advantage of the favorable fiscal situation to cut them again.

BC

[teejers1]

Actually, he was impeached.  And he certainly has not been immune from investigations.  I don’t believe any President has been as investigated as Trump. 

IMO the problem isn’t so much the power of the Executive, it is the fecklessness of Congress. Driven by uber partisanship. 2016 should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t.  Congress, in its inability to compromise, has as a result ceded much of its power to the Executive.  Leading, among other things, to the rise of Executive Orders.  Consider this Reagan’s ‘ 86 tax reform bill was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostenkowsi.  It passed with bipartisan support. Both Obama (ACA) and Trumps (tax reform) biggest legislative victories passed purely on party lines. Which of course means when you have a change of party in the White House they simply try to undo the legislation. Trump and the Republicans have tried it with the ACA and if Biden wins he and the Democrats will try the same thing with tax reform.

Of all the things Trump has done his Presidency, passing a tax cut is about the most "normal" thing he's done (at least as a Republican).  I guarantee you that a President Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or John Kasich would have done something quite similar.

And, given that the government's varying fiscal situation, taxes go up and taxes go down.  I'll remind you that after the Reagan tax cut, it was George HW Bush (and later Bill Clinton) who raised taxes when it became clear that that tax cuts did not, in fact, pay for themselves and deficits continued to rise.  When Clinton's tax increases produced surpluses, it was a surprise to exactly no one that his successor would take advantage of the favorable fiscal situation to cut them again.

BC

C'mon now . . . Clinton's budget surpluses were almost entirely the result of the Internet bubble (remember that it took states a while to try and tap into that then-new economy) and not his tax increases.  [But I do agree that the surpluses chimeric "surpluses" would lead to tax cuts].  

Some presidents are extremely lucky (Bill Clinton); others are extremely unlucky (Jimmy Carter).  Some presidents appear teflonesque (Reagan); others don't even get anything thrown at them (Obama).  Many benefits that inure to benefit of a particular occupant have little to do with the occupant.

[teejers1]

Actually, he was impeached.  And he certainly has not been immune from investigations.  I don’t believe any President has been as investigated as Trump. 

IMO the problem isn’t so much the power of the Executive, it is the fecklessness of Congress. Driven by uber partisanship. 2016 should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t.  Congress, in its inability to compromise, has as a result ceded much of its power to the Executive.  Leading, among other things, to the rise of Executive Orders.  Consider this Reagan’s ‘ 86 tax reform bill was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostenkowsi.  It passed with bipartisan support. Both Obama (ACA) and Trumps (tax reform) biggest legislative victories passed purely on party lines. Which of course means when you have a change of party in the White House they simply try to undo the legislation. Trump and the Republicans have tried it with the ACA and if Biden wins he and the Democrats will try the same thing with tax reform.

Of all the things Trump has done his Presidency, passing a tax cut is about the most "normal" thing he's done (at least as a Republican).  I guarantee you that a President Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or John Kasich would have done something quite similar.

And, given that the government's varying fiscal situation, taxes go up and taxes go down.  I'll remind you that after the Reagan tax cut, it was George HW Bush (and later Bill Clinton) who raised taxes when it became clear that that tax cuts did not, in fact, pay for themselves and deficits continued to rise.  When Clinton's tax increases produced surpluses, it was a surprise to exactly no one that his successor would take advantage of the favorable fiscal situation to cut them again.

BC

C'mon now . . . Clinton's budget surpluses were almost entirely the result of the Internet bubble (remember that it took states a while to try and tap into that then-new economy) and not his tax increases.  [But I do agree that the surpluses chimeric "surpluses" would lead to tax cuts].  

Some presidents are extremely lucky (Bill Clinton); others are extremely unlucky (Jimmy Carter).  Some presidents appear teflonesque (Reagan); others don't even get anything thrown at them (Obama).  Many benefits that inure to benefit of a particular occupant have little to do with the occupant.