• FartsWithAnAccent
    link
    English
    1491 year ago

    Golly, that doesn’t sound very small government or individual freedom of them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      20
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You misunderstand, the Federal government should be small so it doesn’t get in the way of the state government doing whatever the hell it wants. Individual rights are a canard to get religious conservatives and 2A enthusiasts on board with dismantling federal protections so that state governments can oppress The Right PeopleTM. Never mind that religious conservatives and 2A enthusiasts are not oppressed and their revenge fantasies are founded on an astro-turfed victim complex.

    • @TheJims
      link
      English
      151 year ago

      Or strict constitutionalist

  • @TheJims
    link
    English
    1031 year ago

    I did Nazi that coming

    • @mriormro
      link
      -401 year ago

      This pun is as tired as your humor.

      • @A_Random_Idiot
        link
        English
        201 year ago

        Says a lot that you take offense to the joke, but not the actual literal nazism.

      • @Brainsploosh
        link
        121 year ago

        Obviously. The pun was his attempt at humor and if one is tired, the other follows.

        You managed to not only say nothing useful in a derogatory manner, but to do it in a stupid way.

    • Hot Saucerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      53
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s a SubStack site which hosts a Judd Legum project called Popular Information.

      He was formerly the editor-in-chief at ThinkProgress.

      EDIT: Just to be clear, not being snarky, this is a super valid question to ask regarding the source.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      251 year ago

      I had the same thought, so I put the article’s URL into Ground News: 6 sources talking about this story, with popular.info being labeled as “high factuality”.

      Pleasantly surprised, I guess.

  • ArgentCorvid [Iowa]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    361 year ago

    Did they also strip the power of the state auditor to demand documents, like they did here in Iowa?

  • jerome
    link
    fedilink
    201 year ago

    this feels like something an election should decide

  • @Ibex0
    link
    61 year ago

    Gerrymandered state legislatures make a huge difference folks.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You quote the first line in the article. Go read the rest.

      It’s fucking worse than a police force.

      In the event that Gov Ops searches a person’s home, these rules mean that the person 1) must keep the entry a secret, 2) cannot seek outside help (unless necessary for fulfilling the request, the law says), and 3) could face criminal charges if Gov Ops deems them uncooperative.

      • @NOT_RICK
        link
        English
        421 year ago

        Well that sure sounds like an unreasonable search

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            10
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ruling class tightening its grip.

            They were successful in getting the working class to vote against their own interests since the late 60s.

            MKUltra was a success. They found out they couldn’t control people as easily with drugs, so they resorted to other means. i.e. pop culture and influencers.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There are 3 Americans.

            • One who is “patriot” republican
            • One who is stoned on weed.
            • One who doesn’t give a shit about what the other two does.

            Only one of them votes.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        171 year ago

        An important note from the article is that this committee has oversight over institutions who do business with the government, not just government employees. Received grant money, welp now Gov ops can take you down. Won’t be surprised to see it expand beyond institutions and start encompassing individuals, allowing them to take out receivers of social benefits

      • @ghostdoggtv
        link
        81 year ago

        Americans, this is what a call to arms sounds like

        • @dragonflyteaparty
          link
          28
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So those people don’t deserve full protections of the constitution, privacy laws, lawyers if their stuff gets searched, and should be arrested if they don’t comply…?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 year ago

          And how the "special oversight committee " only works for roughly half of the state government but can still cause people to be fired for not obliging to the Republican will?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -141 year ago

            I hate to say it, man, but yeah, if you piss off the state government, and you work for them, they’re gonna fire you

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              101 year ago

              From the article:

              But unlike other types of government watchdog groups, GovOps is partisan. Republicans dominate the body, and the group’s politics greatly influence the types of investigations it carries out. For example, Gov Ops launched an inquiry into diversity training programs at the University of North Carolina earlier this year.

              Do you not understand how dangerous it is to democracy to have a partisan police force? If not then I uge you to read about the start of WW2.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -141 year ago

                Every democracy has partisan oversight groups. I’ll get mad at their abuse, not their existence.

                • Chaotic Entropy
                  link
                  fedilink
                  5
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Do you just enjoy playing devil’s advocate?

                  Nobody of sound mind could look at this and just think “Yep, this makes sense. One party should have a secret partisan police who can victimise other political parties and force them to stay silent about it, and comply without question, otherwise be criminally charged. This definitely won’t have any wider negative implications for society.”

                • @ghostdoggtv
                  link
                  41 year ago

                  If you think republicans aren’t going to abuse a partisan police force then your concerns are void and you’re sleepwalking through life.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Every democracy has oversight groups, or an ombudsman. It’s not partisan

                  Imagine a similar situation in a European country having several parties and one party wanting the state budget to fund their investigation of the government. That shit would never see the light of day because there’d always be a majority against it. This only exists in USA because of the two party politics.

    • @CaptainPedantic
      link
      221 year ago

      Yeah it’s an oversight committee in the same way that the “Committee of Public Safety” was concerned with public well-being.

    • @Ultraviolet
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      Calling a secret police force something other than a police force is literally the most basic aspect of a secret police force.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        Typically a secret police force has jurisdiction over more people than government employees and contractors.