@mloxton

> Fundamentalism - The law still partially works under total fascism, and we are not yet at a complete fascist takeover. So mechanisms are still in place, still operating, and I am pointing out that the DOGE crowd are circumventing it and people are complying in a way that is outside law. There is still time to point that out, make people realize that this is breaking rules, and to mobilize against it getting worse. People often assume that things are lawful.

Laws are written texts which are applied subjectively. I now claim that within fascism the subjective application turns further away from the original idea of a law. Disclaimer, I did not talk about fascism in any of my statements. Im glad that you point out the DOGE crowd, we are on the same side about this.

> Security: I point it out for two reasons. One, is that the lack of security vetting highlights the risk and the abnormality of the situation, and secondly, that if Trump himself granted security clearance, that in itself is noteworthy and signals where we are headed.

I am glad that you see it that way too, because the original statement you made was that they had no security clearance and that is exactly what I have spoken out against, no more and no less. The counter-argument that followed made you look like you wanted to look the other way and denying what is going on.

> People need to be reminded that this is abnormal, breaks precedent and practice, and that good practice is being skirted.
> "maybe you like them having power"
>That makes fuckall sense. I suggest you reconsider

I do, forgive me, altho i don't know you and i think you should deduce how this sentence came about with this answer here at the latest

> "I linked a trustworthy article"
> My dude, I am following reputable infosec sources, I get security briefings, I have lived in places where authoritarianism was a feature, I know how the gov security vetting works. So again, I have not seen anything that suggested that they "went through the government security vetting". Trump simply granting clearance is not going though "government security vetting", nor is getting an email account from some compliant local IT guy.

And with these statements i have some issues... I see arguments based on your memory/experience as difficult in this situation. But now, lets go back to our original discussion then. I don't really care how the process went, it's not about how the process went, but rather about whether the security clearance is in place or not. And so far, you haven't been able to come up with a counterargument that somebody can relate to or at least something which would be an indicator, that they dont have the security clearance.

This would be possible, for example, by either disproving the credibility of the publishers of the article, or if, for example, you could find a source with comparable credibility that says the opposite and in such cases I do not rely on statements made by individuals. If your level of knowledge, experience or government proximity (or whatever) could be a credible source to discredit the parts or even the full article, then you even might want to talk to the publishers of the article or their competitors.

I for my part, cannot change my mind without at least having credible indicators that speak against the credible indicators in the article and our discussion didn't make it any better so far.