[SV_BubbleTime]

I’m not sure the unsanctioned actions of an individual are the best attack that someone could make on the Trump administration.

I don’t believe anyone here if they say that is honestly a standard that they held through previous administrations.

I think there are plenty of ways to criticize Trump without abandoning my own principles.

[caconym_]

The Trump administration is 100% responsible for setting up the conditions where this kind of breach is effectively inevitable. They created "DOGE", staffed it with (among other specimens) teenage hackers with established records of malfeasance and names like "Big Balls"---presumably without any serious attempt at checking backgrounds and/or responding appropriately to any findings---and (by many accounts I've seen) granted them the authority to demand root level access to government systems without auditable logging or any other record of their actions. There appears to have been effectively zero oversight within "DOGE" itself, and the organization evidently failed to accomplish its stated goals by an enormous margin. AFAIK The Trump administration never publicly acknowledged any of this or took any visible steps to investigate the allegations.

If I was aware of any remotely comparable precedent in any recent administration, I would certainly criticize them for it. But the "DOGE" episode was so far beyond the pale that I can't think of anything else like it.

[red_hare]

That person's actions were only possible because the administration explicitly decided to put that much unchecked power into poorly vetted individuals.

[SV_BubbleTime]

> poorly vetted individuals.

Interesting choice of words and application when discussing gripes against entire administrations.

[lovich]

Why is it interesting?

Why does this admin get a pass from you for their employees actions?

[Sabinus]

You wouldn't hold a Democrat admin responsible for the broad competence of their appointees and direct hires?

[SV_BubbleTime]

I would. I’m saying, that you didn’t.

[miltonlost]

SO you're not defending the administration, you're just attacking everyone who does attack it. Nice.

[hsuduebc2]

If you enable reckless behavior, you are even hyping it I believe you are responsible for this behavior too.

[SV_BubbleTime]

> If you enable reckless behavior, you are even hyping it I believe you are responsible for this behavior too.

Are the people mad at ICE complaining that immigration was perhaps a little too lax under Biden’s admin, and possibly creating a situation where so many people felt inclined to vote for the Mass Deporations Guy?

Is there retroactive anger for Biden Admin? Note that I’m talking about a conservative voter’s right or wrong stance on the popular-at-the-time migrant caravans and not the actions of a specific person in a mid level position.

Not that I’ve seen, ymmv.

[hsuduebc2]

From my point of view, people are angry at ICE not mainly because deportations exist, but because of the methods being used, and those methods are clearly encouraged from above. Who else would be responsible, if not the policymakers themselves?

You can argue about whether immigration was a real problem or mostly fearmongering. In that case, any realistically achievable level of deportations under the previous administration would probably have been dismissed as insufficient anyway so the outcome would the same. But if policymakers deliberately loosen rules, they can be blamed for the consequences.

It is no different from weakening medicine purity standards and then acting surprised when people die. In that case, responsibility clearly falls on the people who made the policy too.

It may sound blunt, but assigning blame is a normal part of politics. Politicians are there to make decisions, and they should be praised or blamed for the results.

[5upplied_demand]

> the best attack that someone could make on the Trump administration.

It doesn't need to be, nor should we measure things against eachother by their ability to be used as an attack. We should measure this on it's own, based on what has happened.

In this case, an agency created by the President's Executive Order, that reports directly to the President made significant personnel and security access changes. There have been many security issues coming from that new personnel and department. If this doesn't fall on the administration, what does?