Talk:Administrative State

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Administrative State as edited by RobSmith (Talk | contribs) at 19:22, 9 November 2019. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This Talk Page is for Discussion Focused on the Improvement of the Corresponding Article
  • Your post should not deviate from the aforementioned purpose; this is not a page for debate on the topic.
  • Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Please place new text under old text; click here to add a new section.
Archives:
None
For article guidelines please see the Commandments and Guidelines

Remove Deep State Template

Yes

  • The template suffers from immense mission-creep. The original progressives: the Wilsonians and the Roosevelts(TR in particular)(Van Hise was a TR advisor) were highly critical of Communists(marxists). During the first red scare the Wilsonians even were putting communists into a concentration camp at Camp Upton pending deportation. Yet the template has an entry for cultural marxism, which was not a part of early Progressivism. That doesn't appear really until the 1960s. Additionally, what Peter Strzok, Jeffery Epstein, and the Trilateral Commission have to do with Hillsdale College, is unclear to me. Contrast with the Bureaucracy page which has quite a creepy image of Strzok sitting there, that page is in the same line with the template.
I can't figure out what Jeffrey Epstein has to do with Herbert Marcuse either. Marcuse being one of the most important figures of Cultural Marxism.
If we wouldn't dare call TR or Wilson Cultural Marxists, which would be highly incorrect on both accounts, then the template doesn't belong. Or the Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt pages deserve massive amounts of construction to correct. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2019 (EST)
  • Some of your points I'm not prepared to debate, however criticism of the Administrative state is very core to conservative beliefs. It's not hard to connect he dots between Cultural Marxism and the Deep State, watching 10 minutes of The View will do that. Epstein was a member of the CFR (for laughs, read Bob Woodward's CIA Wars; when Bill Casey was offered a place in the CFR after 30 odd years in intelligence work he was so angry he refused it telling them they can keep it now, "We're surrounded by crazies.") Perhaps in a few weeks when the FISA abuse report comes out you'll see the connection between an unelected bureaucrat like Strzok and the abuses of the Administrative state.
I read just last night how since Samantha Power was discovered to have illegally unmasked Michael Flynn and 300 other Trump campaign workers, the IC through administrative state abuses have made it even more difficult for Congress and the FISA court to trace who is responsible for illegal unmasking and who the information is shared with.
CFR members, as Patrick Byrne explained, have national security clearances. Why, what, and how did Jeffrey Epstein obtain a national security clearance? (I'll wager $100 it was granted during the Clinton administration, but like so many things, we'll probably never get a journalist to investigate). Mark Zaid, attorney for Deep State informant Eric Ciaramella, brags that he has navigated through the administrative state bureaucracy to get security clearances for "guys with child porn issues." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:06, 9 November 2019 (EST)

No

  • Very fitting. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:34, 9 November 2019 (EST)
  • The Administrative State is the core of this topic -- career bureaucrats who control or who have strong influence over government policy and whose politics are liberal. This isn't a "conspiracy" since nobody's hiding anything. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2019 (EST)