DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds(dropsitenews.com)
dropsitenews.com
DOGE staffer is trying to reroute FEMA funds
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/doge-fema-funding-access-social-security-numbers
315 comments
I think there's value of having good people there when the trump administration is gone.
Having those people quit is effectively part of the current administration's plans.
Having those people quit is effectively part of the current administration's plans.
> I think there's value of having good people there when the trump administration is gone.
I'm not sure about the assumption that there is "when Y is gone", it isn't fully clear. One of the campaign promises from the group that won was that people won't have to vote in the future. Not sure if that's actually feasible or not, but that it was brought up should at least be considered.
But yeah, I hear and agree somewhat with your point otherwise, there might be value in people resisting in small ways (delays, confusion and so on, basically the CIA playbook for corporate sabotage) rather than in big ways of just saying "No" until you get fired.
I'm not sure about the assumption that there is "when Y is gone", it isn't fully clear. One of the campaign promises from the group that won was that people won't have to vote in the future. Not sure if that's actually feasible or not, but that it was brought up should at least be considered.
But yeah, I hear and agree somewhat with your point otherwise, there might be value in people resisting in small ways (delays, confusion and so on, basically the CIA playbook for corporate sabotage) rather than in big ways of just saying "No" until you get fired.
It's difficult to resist when it means likely losing your job and not being about to afford rent or your mortgage.
You're right, it is really difficult and can come with severe consequences. These situations are when our values are truly put to the test.
These moments test us, but they also define us.
These moments test us, but they also define us.
Or quit and return when it's not a hostile environment. No one has to eat his shit. They can leave and come back when they have a genuine opportunity to have an impact. Is that impossible in your view?
Possible but unlikely. Most will move on to another job or retire.
There are several character qualities more important than immediate personal comfort.
Affording to feed your family and put a stable roof over their heads is a bit more than “immediate personal comfort”.
Integrity is priceless for those with a spine.
It honestly doesn't feel so slow...
>DOGE currently has FEMA employees tasked with combing through grants for DEI-related keywords for all grants dating back to 2021. DOGE’s list of “problematic" keywords include: Disadvantaged, Marginalized, Underserved, Environmental Justice, Climate, Equity, Equitable, Inclusion, Diversity, and Culture.
It's sad how the "big tech" fear involves installing an administration that emulates the arbitrary nature of big tech, in spades.
It's sad how the "big tech" fear involves installing an administration that emulates the arbitrary nature of big tech, in spades.
We're watching the ultimate destructive expression of the comp sci "oh, we can just automate that" hubris.
Thought process: “In theory auditing a government agency is simple. I can write assembly for a computer with millions of moving parts. How hard could it be to debug an organization with twenty thousand employees that need support to configure their own email? I spent literally two weeks watching accounting channels on YouTube, so with my mighty developer ultrabrain, this should be a snap. If only developers had time to work on these problems the world wouldn’t need all of these suits.”
People might read that and think I’m being hyperbolic, but I had someone on HN argue that their debugging skills rendered them better at medical diagnosis than doctors, and better at fixing cars than mechanics, by their own totally objective genius developer standards.
People might read that and think I’m being hyperbolic, but I had someone on HN argue that their debugging skills rendered them better at medical diagnosis than doctors, and better at fixing cars than mechanics, by their own totally objective genius developer standards.
That's exactly how they think. Coders tend to employ systems thinking to a fault, where they reduce something very complex to fit a too-simple mental model. It's like going into a room with a lion and thinking it's a house cat because they're both shaped the same. Failing to take note of the key differences will quickly lead to your demise.
Right. Like I always say — you can create a simple solution to any complex problem if you ignore enough pertinent factors.
Can't speak to doctors, but I've been a mechanic and yes there's some large overlap in debugging skills between a good mechanic and a programmer, a mindset of wanting to understand how things work, and breaking down the problem into manageable parts.
Sure. There’s overlap with a lot of things. This developer said that it was (paraphrased) ‘hard for him to take people like mechanics seriously because they lack his superior debugging skills.’ There was no attempt to draw similarities. He was simply saying that developer smarts were the best smarts and they trumped all other smarts.
I can’t tell you how many times developers have tried to explain cooking concepts to me knowing I’m a classically trained and experienced chef. Or explain design to me knowing I have a design degree and years of experience doing it. Some developers just have unending hubris.
I can’t tell you how many times developers have tried to explain cooking concepts to me knowing I’m a classically trained and experienced chef. Or explain design to me knowing I have a design degree and years of experience doing it. Some developers just have unending hubris.
Well, some professionals fail at being counter-examples.
I’ve worked in several professions, with dev being the longest— I’ve encountered more bullshit and incompetence from devs than any other industry I’ve worked in except for tech support. I’ve heard developers saying they’ll simply ‘pivot’ if the big productivity machine eats up their corner of the dev market. Oof… They’re looking at a rude awakening when they see how preciously developers are treated compared to most other employed adults, and how badly they underestimated the unseen complexities in other people’s jobs.
"Move fast and break things", where the "things" are laws, economies, lives, infrastructure...
Automation of dangerous judgement or management decisions is never something a computer should ever do. It's also the cargo cult of worshipping technology as a panacea for social and organizational problems that is itself a problem. Furthermore, the lack of resistance amongst the apolitical functionaries is depressing. I have a bit of hope though that the rage and the furious, righteous anger of federal judges will compel the US Marshal Service to do what is necessary to restore real law and order, and that the DOJ's new flunky won't be able to stop ethical, professional execution of their sacred duty.
And we will be caught in the resulting cultural collateral damage.
Not to mention financial. Its all but inevitable this will have expensive financial fallout, likely for individuals and the government.
I am absolutely gobsmacked that the markets simply don't care about any of this.
the markets are, at this point, entirely divorced from the average citizen
plus most of the market doesn't move much, and even in the S&P 500 it's only a handful of companies that see serious gains. And they happen to be tech companies whose leadership "kissed the ring".
plus most of the market doesn't move much, and even in the S&P 500 it's only a handful of companies that see serious gains. And they happen to be tech companies whose leadership "kissed the ring".
Their MO is to play as many angles as they can simultaneously.
[deleted]
Wait till March.
Right now this is basically the dead body in motion.
Right now this is basically the dead body in motion.
Yes! Exactly. :(
Just like Web3 and decentralized tech got a bad rap because of Luna, FTX and other centralized grifters. First they came for the decentralized BFT developers, and I piled on, because I wasn’t decentralized…
Just like Web3 and decentralized tech got a bad rap because of Luna, FTX and other centralized grifters. First they came for the decentralized BFT developers, and I piled on, because I wasn’t decentralized…
Who among us has not thought "I could rewrite twitter in half a day in rails"?
:D
The grace which saves us all is that we do not have the power to follow every idiotic impulse and see it's horrible effects.
I found "Forbidden Planet" to be quite helpful in seeing that idea put forth in film- it's quite good and left an impact on my thinking around these kinds of things...
Unrelatedly, I am starting to feel like I am living in a timeline where we're seeing the collusion of two men who have been cursed via "may the gods give you everything you ask for." Perhaps a whole culture of that, in fact.
:D
The grace which saves us all is that we do not have the power to follow every idiotic impulse and see it's horrible effects.
I found "Forbidden Planet" to be quite helpful in seeing that idea put forth in film- it's quite good and left an impact on my thinking around these kinds of things...
Unrelatedly, I am starting to feel like I am living in a timeline where we're seeing the collusion of two men who have been cursed via "may the gods give you everything you ask for." Perhaps a whole culture of that, in fact.
Is there anything we can do?
I don’t mean to ask that and imply that there is nothing. I mean it as an honest question. Is there a process or organization to snap into right now to help?
I don’t mean to ask that and imply that there is nothing. I mean it as an honest question. Is there a process or organization to snap into right now to help?
> Is there anything we can do?
Keep durable notes and share them with your electeds. Particularly at the state level. These kids won’t be prosecuted immediately, possibly never federally. But their actions will need to be systematically undone at the federal level and individually prosecuted at the state and/or local levels. This is going to be a massive bureaucratic and legal undertaking, and we’ll need record preservation to do it.
Keep durable notes and share them with your electeds. Particularly at the state level. These kids won’t be prosecuted immediately, possibly never federally. But their actions will need to be systematically undone at the federal level and individually prosecuted at the state and/or local levels. This is going to be a massive bureaucratic and legal undertaking, and we’ll need record preservation to do it.
How will local/state prosecute it?
The crimes are on the federal level and pretty sure they'll receive pardons.
The crimes are on the federal level and pretty sure they'll receive pardons.
> How will local/state prosecute it?
Lots of state laws around privacy and tort that wouldn’t gain supremacy if a federal court found the DOGE bros didn’t act lawfully. Pardons prevent them from being punished for that lawlessness by the U.S. But it doesn’t stop state courts from finding adversely.
Lots of state laws around privacy and tort that wouldn’t gain supremacy if a federal court found the DOGE bros didn’t act lawfully. Pardons prevent them from being punished for that lawlessness by the U.S. But it doesn’t stop state courts from finding adversely.
I think maybe the user is implying that a civil war will break out. I started reading about the original American Civil War after recent events. The lead up to that was protracted. As long as some states begin assembling militias now and unify, it's probable they will be able to mount an attack against the Federal government as happened back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_leading_to_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_leading_to_...
The 1800s for a very different time when the national army essentially didn't exist. And probably isn't a very good model for what a modern national breakup looks like.
Brexit would be the best case, although most objections to the federal government would be resolved with a reduced size and scope
Brexit would be the best case, although most objections to the federal government would be resolved with a reduced size and scope
> maybe the user is implying that a civil war will break out
I’m not. Short of a decapitation strike in which MAGA and Musk are taken out in a night of long knives, which would itself be more destabilising to our republic than anything they’ve done, there is little to play for a military conflict à la the Civil War in a nuclear state. If we’re going to see a civil war, it wouldn’t be states vs U.S. but some compartment of the U.S. claiming legitimate power while another denies it, e.g. the military deposing Trump or him refusing to step down after impeachment and conviction or an electoral loss.
I’m not. Short of a decapitation strike in which MAGA and Musk are taken out in a night of long knives, which would itself be more destabilising to our republic than anything they’ve done, there is little to play for a military conflict à la the Civil War in a nuclear state. If we’re going to see a civil war, it wouldn’t be states vs U.S. but some compartment of the U.S. claiming legitimate power while another denies it, e.g. the military deposing Trump or him refusing to step down after impeachment and conviction or an electoral loss.
I see. My opinion is that nuclear weapons are more or less useless in a modern conflict, as has been observed in the Russia-Ukraine war with endless Russian sabre-rattling. The collateral damage from nuclear weapons makes their usage suicidal, and in the case of the US, states breaking away from the Federal government would also inherit a nuclear arsenal -- leading to a stalemate.
The Russia-Ukraine war has convinced me that artificial intelligence driven drone warfare has rendered nuclear warfare obsolete. The drones act as a force multiplier which can mass target the enemy with little collateral damage.
The Russia-Ukraine war has convinced me that artificial intelligence driven drone warfare has rendered nuclear warfare obsolete. The drones act as a force multiplier which can mass target the enemy with little collateral damage.
> nuclear weapons are more or less useless in a modern conflict, as has been observed in the Russia-Ukraine war with endless Russian sabre-rattling
Russia is constrained by India and China in its use of tactical nukes in Ukraine. That wouldn't apply in America.
> collateral damage from nuclear weapons makes their usage suicidal
The excess damage caused by tactical nukes when compared with conventional weapons, particularly the low-efficiency sort that tend to find their way into civil wars, is principally diplomatic. We're currently seeing a breakdown of the rules-based international order.
> in the case of the US, states breaking away from the Federal government would also inherit a nuclear arsenal
Why? The nukes are on U.S. land, legally and militarily. A state militia attempting to storm a nuclear silo is, if anything, the closest legitimate reason I can think of for why Washington might nuke its own homeland.
> Russia-Ukraine war has convinced me that artificial intelligence driven drone warfare has rendered nuclear warfare obsolete
There have been no AI drones in that war. Drones are reigning free because nobody established air superiority.
Russia is constrained by India and China in its use of tactical nukes in Ukraine. That wouldn't apply in America.
> collateral damage from nuclear weapons makes their usage suicidal
The excess damage caused by tactical nukes when compared with conventional weapons, particularly the low-efficiency sort that tend to find their way into civil wars, is principally diplomatic. We're currently seeing a breakdown of the rules-based international order.
> in the case of the US, states breaking away from the Federal government would also inherit a nuclear arsenal
Why? The nukes are on U.S. land, legally and militarily. A state militia attempting to storm a nuclear silo is, if anything, the closest legitimate reason I can think of for why Washington might nuke its own homeland.
> Russia-Ukraine war has convinced me that artificial intelligence driven drone warfare has rendered nuclear warfare obsolete
There have been no AI drones in that war. Drones are reigning free because nobody established air superiority.
> There have been no AI drones in that war. Drones are reigning free because nobody established air superiority.
This hasn't been true since last year, when automated targeting systems began entering the battlefield. They still are not as widely deployed as personnel controlled drones, but over time it appears to be shifting towards battlefield autonomy. Nuclear weapons are a cudgel, automated human-free weapons are a scalpel.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/missiles-...
This hasn't been true since last year, when automated targeting systems began entering the battlefield. They still are not as widely deployed as personnel controlled drones, but over time it appears to be shifting towards battlefield autonomy. Nuclear weapons are a cudgel, automated human-free weapons are a scalpel.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/missiles-...
> hasn't been true since last year, when automated targeting systems began entering the battlefield
By this measure we’ve had hypersonic AI “drones” in air-to-air combat since the 70s.
By this measure we’ve had hypersonic AI “drones” in air-to-air combat since the 70s.
A heat seeking missile is not equivalent to AI-powered automated target acquisition.
Keep in mind that the ruling party has massively powerful surveillance systems at their fingertips. It's hard to say how things will unfold, but being a dissident may not be in one's best interest.
> being a dissident may not be in one's best interest.
I agree, if you're not a fan of democracy, you might not want to be a dissident in the current American environment. If you are, then you most likely want to be a dissident, otherwise it'll slowly disappear before your eyes, and you'll be too late to be able to change it soon.
If you're in the latter camp, learn how to protect and hide yourself rather than becoming apathetic because you're afraid of the consequences.
I agree, if you're not a fan of democracy, you might not want to be a dissident in the current American environment. If you are, then you most likely want to be a dissident, otherwise it'll slowly disappear before your eyes, and you'll be too late to be able to change it soon.
If you're in the latter camp, learn how to protect and hide yourself rather than becoming apathetic because you're afraid of the consequences.
> the ruling party
Monolithic ruling classes are the political scientific equivalent of spherical cows. The richer model (still spherical, but maybe incorporating drag) is that of elite constituencies.
> being a dissident may not be in one's best interest
If we’re going imperial, dissident status is less risky than being poor. Practically every autocratic transition in history has involved a massive wealth transfer up, together with the dismantling of expensive social safety nets.
Monolithic ruling classes are the political scientific equivalent of spherical cows. The richer model (still spherical, but maybe incorporating drag) is that of elite constituencies.
> being a dissident may not be in one's best interest
If we’re going imperial, dissident status is less risky than being poor. Practically every autocratic transition in history has involved a massive wealth transfer up, together with the dismantling of expensive social safety nets.
"“We’re going to have supervision. Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”" - Larry Ellison (Oracle).
Larry is the 4th richest person, worth more than the GDP of Ukraine.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/16/oracle-ceo-larry-ellison-s...
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
Larry is the 4th richest person, worth more than the GDP of Ukraine.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/16/oracle-ceo-larry-ellison-s...
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
It seems like there is a winner-takes-all opportunity here to me. Since many of the billionaires in the US have made the decision to align with Trump, if many of the states unify and can overthrow the government, they also stand to separate the billionaires from their wealth.
The Federal American government looks like it's playing a dangerous game -- or at least makes the assumption that individual states within it will be unable to mount a concerted response. With inflation and unemployment rising, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers out of jobs, it's possible state governments may become radicalized.
The Federal American government looks like it's playing a dangerous game -- or at least makes the assumption that individual states within it will be unable to mount a concerted response. With inflation and unemployment rising, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers out of jobs, it's possible state governments may become radicalized.
Vote when the time comes, and hoping the judiciary behaves independently.
However, considering SCOTUS has largely decided POTUS is largely immune from most anything, I don't see why he can't just ignore the courts when the time comes...
However, considering SCOTUS has largely decided POTUS is largely immune from most anything, I don't see why he can't just ignore the courts when the time comes...
What does that say for the rest of us? If the leader of the free world has decided laws don't matter, then as far as I'm concerned that applies to the rest of us, rendering it "legal" to remove him via whatever means we as polite society choose fit.
At least, my hope is that they don't push the limits with ignoring laws because they're afraid that would happen...
At least, my hope is that they don't push the limits with ignoring laws because they're afraid that would happen...
>What does that say for the rest of us?
Gotta do what you can where you are. Even as someone in the US I've disliked how passive other free countries have been...
Gotta do what you can where you are. Even as someone in the US I've disliked how passive other free countries have been...
There are already groups organizing protests across the land. Join one in your area. Or just show up when a demonstration is happening near you. Numbers are important.
[deleted]
Isn't this what you guys have the second amendment for? To secure a free state?
[deleted]
slt2021(1)
There's a word for people who start shooting when they don't like the outcome of an election: insurrectionists.
Look for politicians (in your district and state) who are already active, pick the one who seems to be not a useless parrot (but also not someone who doesn't get the big picture), and ask them how can you help them, how can you support their efforts.
The good playbook consists of rebooting the D party. (Which lost the election because it did not understand what the majority wants, and how to authentically offer something that is close enough.)
The good playbook consists of rebooting the D party. (Which lost the election because it did not understand what the majority wants, and how to authentically offer something that is close enough.)
Rebooting the D party is unnecessary.
Losing only by 1.5% in an election where globally nearly every _incumbent_ lost is pretty good.
In the UK, the incumbents lost 20% of their seats [1]. The democrats lost 2 seats in the senate [2] and _gained_ 2 seats in the house [3].
Making drastic changes to a party because you narrowly lost an election with a candidate that never won a primary is dumb.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_el...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_elec...
[3]: (idk how it's 2 since 215-214 = 1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_House_of_Re...
Losing only by 1.5% in an election where globally nearly every _incumbent_ lost is pretty good.
In the UK, the incumbents lost 20% of their seats [1]. The democrats lost 2 seats in the senate [2] and _gained_ 2 seats in the house [3].
Making drastic changes to a party because you narrowly lost an election with a candidate that never won a primary is dumb.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_el...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_elec...
[3]: (idk how it's 2 since 215-214 = 1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_House_of_Re...
this may appear reasonable but every single state swayed to the right. and country elected the most corrupt and degenerate person that ever lived on this planet. so you can look at this from “numbers” perspective till the Sun goes down but Democrats have fully lost their way and need a full reboot. shit they have been selling no one is buying anymore and GOP candidate in 2028 will be a lot less of a fraud/felon/… than in 2024.
It was worse than that in the UK! The incumbent party lost 69% of their seats (20% was the vote share).
365 -> 121
365 -> 121
> Making drastic changes to a party because you narrowly lost an election with a candidate that never won a primary is dumb.
That depends on who you lose to.
That depends on who you lose to.
How is a candidate that didn't win a primary _narrowly_ losing to a candidate that won a primary a big deal?
Like if Democrats decided to run Ron DeSantis how huge do you think Trump's lead would've been?
Like if Democrats decided to run Ron DeSantis how huge do you think Trump's lead would've been?
If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to another marathon runner, that's OK.
If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to a toddler, that's probably not.
The Dems fought an eminently beatable candidate and lost, and they continue to struggle with messaging now (stop putting Schumer up there to deliver it!). They flubbed the response to Dobbs, the consultant class nixed the Harris campaign parts that were working (weird etc.) in favor of things that don't (Cheney endorsements). etc.
If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to a toddler, that's probably not.
The Dems fought an eminently beatable candidate and lost, and they continue to struggle with messaging now (stop putting Schumer up there to deliver it!). They flubbed the response to Dobbs, the consultant class nixed the Harris campaign parts that were working (weird etc.) in favor of things that don't (Cheney endorsements). etc.
> If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to a toddler, that's probably not.
You understand that in this analogy, the toddler won the NYC marathon 2 years ago and then beat somebody that lost their local 5k?
You understand that in this analogy, the toddler won the NYC marathon 2 years ago and then beat somebody that lost their local 5k?
I do!
The party that keeps losing to the toddler in varied fashion needs to do some soul searching and make changes instead of spending a bunch of political capital keeping AOC out of roles.
The party that keeps losing to the toddler in varied fashion needs to do some soul searching and make changes instead of spending a bunch of political capital keeping AOC out of roles.
How you frame a problem, determines what solution you are going to find.
I went over many assumptions after the elections, to understand what I had missed. But things changed when I asked a different question.
Its not a question of how Harris lost. Its a question of how Trump ran in the first place.
With that change, things clicked into place.
I went over many assumptions after the elections, to understand what I had missed. But things changed when I asked a different question.
Its not a question of how Harris lost. Its a question of how Trump ran in the first place.
With that change, things clicked into place.
Decades of ignoring existing anti-trust laws leading to large conglomerates with monopolistic pricing power?
Unfriendly labor rulings like the time you spend in mandatory employer required security screenings doesn't count as paid time?
Do share with the class what you think is special about Trump running consider he's done it for 4 elections [1] and considered it against Obama (you may remember the whole birther movement).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_camp...
Unfriendly labor rulings like the time you spend in mandatory employer required security screenings doesn't count as paid time?
Do share with the class what you think is special about Trump running consider he's done it for 4 elections [1] and considered it against Obama (you may remember the whole birther movement).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_camp...
I like the tone of condescension. Makes it easier.
Lets work with what you said, what caused those issues in turn? If we get stuck at congress being deadlocked, or bad democrat leadership - please see "dems are always wrong". Where the converastion comes to whoever we blame (always the Dems), and then we sit on our hands.
You raised the question of trump running 4 times. I found that instructive, since the first time was in 2000, and it went no where. the other 3 times were the current 3 presedential races.
He was not a political force that decimated the anointed ones of the Republican inner circle. Nor was social tolerance for his behavior this high. What changed.
How did someone, an American who instigated an insurrection, A felon, A person who said he will grab women by the pussy - not only unsinkable in politics, but was able to tell everyone what Harris' campaign was?
Trump wanted to build a wall across a border. This wasn't a president in some banana republic.
This was in America. And this was tolerable, if not welcome.
Over an over again, we use normal measures (other candidate should message better), as if Trump is NORMAL.
That if someone else did a better job he would lose.
Its the other way round - America had a problem when he got to the ballot box, and did that twice.
Lets work with what you said, what caused those issues in turn? If we get stuck at congress being deadlocked, or bad democrat leadership - please see "dems are always wrong". Where the converastion comes to whoever we blame (always the Dems), and then we sit on our hands.
You raised the question of trump running 4 times. I found that instructive, since the first time was in 2000, and it went no where. the other 3 times were the current 3 presedential races.
He was not a political force that decimated the anointed ones of the Republican inner circle. Nor was social tolerance for his behavior this high. What changed.
How did someone, an American who instigated an insurrection, A felon, A person who said he will grab women by the pussy - not only unsinkable in politics, but was able to tell everyone what Harris' campaign was?
Trump wanted to build a wall across a border. This wasn't a president in some banana republic.
This was in America. And this was tolerable, if not welcome.
Over an over again, we use normal measures (other candidate should message better), as if Trump is NORMAL.
That if someone else did a better job he would lose.
Its the other way round - America had a problem when he got to the ballot box, and did that twice.
Do please share your conclusions with the rest of us?
I'm more curious what questions or potential different issues people can see if they start from this point.
Congress, lol
That. Or pitchforks. Or holes outside of towns[1].
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42318504
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42318504
From 2020 but still fitting
https://theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets...
https://theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets...
cbeach(6)
countelthrow(1)
Why does everything D0G3 get flagged?
every day a dozen critical of Musk/DOGE discussions land on HN main, and zero non-critical/positive ones
it is an illusion of being surrounded by brigades of conservatives censoring you, if anything - the opposite is true
when I tried submitting a positive take on recent happenings in DC - my own post was flagged withing 5 minutes, and I was chastised for posting a link to nazi platform (it was a link to X longpost)
it is an illusion of being surrounded by brigades of conservatives censoring you, if anything - the opposite is true
when I tried submitting a positive take on recent happenings in DC - my own post was flagged withing 5 minutes, and I was chastised for posting a link to nazi platform (it was a link to X longpost)
Yeah it's a pattern for sure. Lotta folks seem to not want other people to talk about this kind of thing. Same goes for most other Trump administration articles.
I get not wanting to read it, but that's not what flagging is for IMO...
I get not wanting to read it, but that's not what flagging is for IMO...
Visit /active: https://news.ycombinator.com/active
You'll see every single article criticizing DOGE has been flagged by users, in order to try to bury it.
You'll see every single article criticizing DOGE has been flagged by users, in order to try to bury it.
Bizarre that startup news isn't a place we can talk about the US government turning into a startup.
Well, I agreed with the parent's comment until I clicked on your link. I'm not american, but I understand how important these topics are for you. However, /active is completely filled with US government news and politics. I would not access HN if that was the homepage, honestly.
Im surprised my comment is still up!
I guess the HN crowd are too able to understand what's happening. There's too much specific criticism here. Who is blocking these discussions? Where else can we go? Every day the discussions here are blocked. YCombinator has taken a side and it is a worrying one.
There are a very large number of discussion venues online that do not tend to penalize controversial political issues. Many of them have strong political biases (but, then again, so does HN.)
I'm aware that there are other discussion forums but the demographic here has a very specific technical knowledge which is hugely relevant to current events. I want to see these things discussed by people with that knowledge. Other forums have different userbases. That's why it's distressing to see YCombinator take such a clear side in this, or at least not seem to care about the clear abuse of the flagging system.
I agree. If the articles were "Major government IT system crashes and loses data" or "NASA victim of cyber-attack" or "United States Digital Service product roadmap," then the articles would be on-topic and unflagged. But, as soon as the words Elon or DOGE enter the picture, they're insta-flagged. Yes, these topics tend to get heated but that doesn't make them off-topic or irrelevant to a tech news site, or justify user flagging.
Tech Bros stick together?
If they would rather lean into bureaucratic evils like TSA with similar ferociousness (and saving hundreds of millions or even billions easily), they would get some points to burn on unpopular fascist moves. But no lets target the weakest in society, for sure easy targets with little to defend themselves.
And ... there we go - flagged by Musk's tech bros again. HN is starting to feel like X -- I've deleted my X account, and might have to do the same here.
I've now switched my primary HN link from the home page to /active, where, thankfully, flagged posts still show up.
I've now switched my primary HN link from the home page to /active, where, thankfully, flagged posts still show up.
It's fascinating to watch the US Federal government dismantled by a tech giant while all of FAANG complies in advance. Thousands of software developers affected with Federal layoffs and DOGE defunding and yet it's not appropriate for discussion on HN.
I believe that the USA is now in the grips of a fascist government. Resistance is minimal and focused on fixing what the administration has broken last week or last month, and may take years to have any impact through courts, legislation, and direct action. The Federal government as we knew it, is gone. Power has been consolidated into the executive branch and a blue wave in 2026 will be too late. Congress is being stripped of its power and the judicial branch has been an enabler of unchecked executive power for a decade or more.
I recognize that this is a fringe belief.
All we can do now is help each other and resist as much as possible.
I believe that the USA is now in the grips of a fascist government. Resistance is minimal and focused on fixing what the administration has broken last week or last month, and may take years to have any impact through courts, legislation, and direct action. The Federal government as we knew it, is gone. Power has been consolidated into the executive branch and a blue wave in 2026 will be too late. Congress is being stripped of its power and the judicial branch has been an enabler of unchecked executive power for a decade or more.
I recognize that this is a fringe belief.
All we can do now is help each other and resist as much as possible.
I’ve generally been praiseful of HN’s moderation. But given the leadership of YC’s political views, it’s disappointing to see politics called on MAGA criticism but not on similar critiques of San Francisco and New York politics.
> I've now switched my primary HN link from the home page to /active, where, thankfully, flagged posts still show up.
Great tip, thanks!
Great tip, thanks!
Yea, the difference between home and /active has never been starker. I feel like HN's well-intentioned user-flagging system assumed good faith, and was not built to handle the obvious partisan brigading that we've been seeing.
> system assumed good faith
Ironically also the reason that many checks and balances in the US government seem to be failing.
Ironically also the reason that many checks and balances in the US government seem to be failing.
I've always had /active as my primary link. It's where the best discussions are! Even if they are controversial, it's usually where the most interesting posts populate.
Thans for that idea about /active. I've been so confused and disturbed these past two weeks to see HN apparently ignore what's happening.
Big tech comes to destroy America.
As a European this is just so terrifying and fascinating to watch at the same time. I really wonder (and hope for the best) what comes out of all this. With Trump and Musk and this agency that isn't one and all the presidential orders. Will we look at this some time later and think "well, that was really stupid, do not try again" or will the world burn down over this? Crazy times.
We'll look back on it as we do all of the other times people got away with things they shouldn't have gotten away with while holding the power of the state.
I'll also add that there are absolutely people in Europe who aspire to see this kind of thing happen there, and that in some cases, it already has. See: Orban, Brexit, Le Pen, AfD, etc... and that of course doesn't touch on what happens in less-Western European countries.
I'll also add that there are absolutely people in Europe who aspire to see this kind of thing happen there, and that in some cases, it already has. See: Orban, Brexit, Le Pen, AfD, etc... and that of course doesn't touch on what happens in less-Western European countries.
> there are absolutely people in Europe who aspire to see this kind of thing happen there
Yeah, that's exactly what I fear. Seeing this is a working example or a role model on how to do it here, too. And yes, you pointed out the most obvious of the bad guys.
Yeah, that's exactly what I fear. Seeing this is a working example or a role model on how to do it here, too. And yes, you pointed out the most obvious of the bad guys.
In reality, it's the opposite. What we're seeing day-by-day in the US today matches almost exactly how the rise of Fascism was done in Europe, and how they grabbed as much power as they could, both before the second-world war, and in more modern times.
> Will we look at this some time later and think "well, that was really stupid, do not try again" or will the world burn down over this?
Well, considering this is like the N-th time this happen, with the last times being extensively recorded and philosophized about, I'd say we will look back at this and say "How could that have happened? Why didn't anyone do anything?", just like we did the previous times.
Well, considering this is like the N-th time this happen, with the last times being extensively recorded and philosophized about, I'd say we will look back at this and say "How could that have happened? Why didn't anyone do anything?", just like we did the previous times.
From Europe this is especially "terrifying" because most countries have massively bigger state sectors than the US and they are very often very ineffective and wasteful. So what is happening in the US is a nightmare for some this side of the Pond because, if it does not lead to catastrophe of course (big caveat), it will give ideas...
No later that yesterday the EU Commission released this (no relation whatsoever, of course):
"we will radically lighten the regulatory load for people, businesses and administrations in the EU. To boost prosperity and resilience, the Commission will propose unprecedented simplification to unleash opportunities, innovation and growth." [1]
Hopefully this means that the EU bureaucracy is waking up.
[1] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning...
No later that yesterday the EU Commission released this (no relation whatsoever, of course):
"we will radically lighten the regulatory load for people, businesses and administrations in the EU. To boost prosperity and resilience, the Commission will propose unprecedented simplification to unleash opportunities, innovation and growth." [1]
Hopefully this means that the EU bureaucracy is waking up.
[1] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning...
Interesting how "it all works out and we realize that there was a lot of mismanagement and misappropriated funds" isn't one of your options. My money is on that one.
As another European it amuses me that Europe cannot give up this smug attitude and keeps looking at the US in such a condescending way. Meanwhile Europe has been in freefall for a decade and nobody here seems to notice.
Compared to the US the EU falls much slower
You must be kidding, the last decade is about Europe totally shooting themselves in the foot and giving up leadership in almost every field. US and China have been the big winners here.
The US fell in a month much deeper than the EU in a decade.
Like I said the EU falls slower.
Like I said the EU falls slower.
I'm not going to try convincing you, as again, the attitude you express is very common across Europe. Just a small question you may want to consider: how come the US is calling the shots everywhere around the world, Mid-East, Ukraine, etc., and in all technological issues that matter. Where is Europe in all this? Ten years ago, at least Angela Merkel was sitting at the table. Can you claim with a straight face that the influence of Europe has not decreased?
>Can you claim with a straight face that the influence of Europe has not decreased?
Yes, I can. Do you remember what happened when it came out that the USA was tapping Merkel's cell phone?
Maybe she sat on the table but shots were still called by the US.
Yes, I can. Do you remember what happened when it came out that the USA was tapping Merkel's cell phone?
Maybe she sat on the table but shots were still called by the US.
It may fall slower but it also keeps falling... US' GDP is now 80% higher than EU's. The usual retort is that Europeans are not chasing money and prefer to have good quality of life, healthcare, etc. but this misses the key thing that if your income falls behind little by little at some point you will no longer be able to afford those things... we're already seeing it.
> we're already seeing it.
Where exactly are we seeing this? AFAIK, most people in Europe still has access to healthcare, and still be able to have a job + free-time, with parental leave and more. Has that disappeared from any countries where it used to exist?
I think the constant worry and focus on GDP is a great example of the differences of mindset between Americans and Europeans. As long as "number goes up!" is true, Americans seem to think that most things are fine and working alright, while a European might be more focused on things on the ground and around them in their daily life, rather than judging their quality of life based on how the economy is doing for the rich people.
Where exactly are we seeing this? AFAIK, most people in Europe still has access to healthcare, and still be able to have a job + free-time, with parental leave and more. Has that disappeared from any countries where it used to exist?
I think the constant worry and focus on GDP is a great example of the differences of mindset between Americans and Europeans. As long as "number goes up!" is true, Americans seem to think that most things are fine and working alright, while a European might be more focused on things on the ground and around them in their daily life, rather than judging their quality of life based on how the economy is doing for the rich people.
You are both missing my point and perfectly illustrating it.
The usual resort is that the EU fears debt.
Just compare US debt rising to US GDP rising.
Just compare US debt rising to US GDP rising.
Yeah but you guys can't even afford to buy eggs...
If TFA is an example of the US being a "big winner" then I'm happy to be on the losing side.
That is probably because you live in the states that you think that. The EU is so regulated its hard to do anything nowadays.
> The EU is so regulated its hard to do anything nowadays.
What are you referring to here, specifically? Something that is a net-positive for society, and that would be legal in the US but is illegal in Europe or EU?
What are you referring to here, specifically? Something that is a net-positive for society, and that would be legal in the US but is illegal in Europe or EU?
Starting the next Google or OpenAI. Not illegal, just not possible.
Where is the next Google in the US?
And OpenAI just burns money, maybe we should wait if it will survive.
And OpenAI just burns money, maybe we should wait if it will survive.
Thanks to what laws/regulations? Or was that just the meme "Europeans are lazy/slow" but tailored to HN readers?
AFAIK, things like specific the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions would allow you to even train on copyrighted materials without permission in certain cases, in the example of LLMs.
Mistral also seems to be making progress, and I'm not aware of any African, South American or Australian efforts that are further ahead, so while it might not be number 1, Europe is at least not last.
AFAIK, things like specific the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions would allow you to even train on copyrighted materials without permission in certain cases, in the example of LLMs.
Mistral also seems to be making progress, and I'm not aware of any African, South American or Australian efforts that are further ahead, so while it might not be number 1, Europe is at least not last.
Oh, that's not a very high bar now, not being the last :)
Siemens, Bosch, Mercedes-Benz, etc. etc. were innovative startups once that defined their industries and they put the foundations of the high standard of living that you enjoy now. Where are the similar European innovations of today?
Siemens, Bosch, Mercedes-Benz, etc. etc. were innovative startups once that defined their industries and they put the foundations of the high standard of living that you enjoy now. Where are the similar European innovations of today?
> Oh, that's not a very high bar now, not being the last :)
Well, your argument was that it wasn't possible, so at least we both agree now that you were wrong there.
> they put the foundations of the high standard of living that you enjoy now.
Again, the crux of the argument is that I believe our institutions and governments are the reason we have high standard of living, not because there was three German companies who were innovative ~100-200 years ago.
I don't even understand how the innovations of those companies are related to the quality of life in Sweden, for example, but I think we've lost the thread in this discussion a while ago so maybe better to not continue at all.
Well, your argument was that it wasn't possible, so at least we both agree now that you were wrong there.
> they put the foundations of the high standard of living that you enjoy now.
Again, the crux of the argument is that I believe our institutions and governments are the reason we have high standard of living, not because there was three German companies who were innovative ~100-200 years ago.
I don't even understand how the innovations of those companies are related to the quality of life in Sweden, for example, but I think we've lost the thread in this discussion a while ago so maybe better to not continue at all.
I gave those three just as examples from many possible. The swedish quality of life is due to the similar caliber swedish innovators of the past hundred years. At least we agree in ending the conversation :)
Well, Mistral is looking pretty promising for AI.
> Meanwhile Europe has been in freefall for a decade and nobody here seems to notice.
We all have different values that matter. Europeans (for better or worse) tend to prefer stability, probably because of past experiences, over oligarchy and free capitalism, while the US is almost the exact opposite.
So both parties look at the other and see "freefall decline for decades", both being smug about the other being worse, while we in reality care about different things.
We all have different values that matter. Europeans (for better or worse) tend to prefer stability, probably because of past experiences, over oligarchy and free capitalism, while the US is almost the exact opposite.
So both parties look at the other and see "freefall decline for decades", both being smug about the other being worse, while we in reality care about different things.
The stability of Europe is an illusion. Politically and economically Europe is becoming a lightweight who will not be able to do anything without the US permission.
> The stability of Europe is an illusion
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of the continent, but this is probably the most stable and peaceful time-period of the continent since humans started populating it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Europe is a great introduction to the subject.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of the continent, but this is probably the most stable and peaceful time-period of the continent since humans started populating it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Europe is a great introduction to the subject.
Yes, and the second most stable and peaceful moment was 1913 when people were celebrating a half-century of continuous growth and prosperity. I think I'll pass your introduction, thanks.
As I said, Americans and Europeans clearly care about different things :) Your sole focus on "growth" and "prosperity" makes this crystal clear and will make a good example of this in future discussions.
You may value other things like peace or a societal safety net or good healthcare or plenty of free time for your hobbies, etc. but it will be hard to maintain all these without growth and prosperity; like it or not, these things were paid for by VW selling cars abroad and the US Army protecting you. Europe is facing a rude awakening.
As a European, DOGE looks incredible. Saving tonnes of money - wish we had the same in Europe instead of extortionate taxes and a failing welfare state.
This confirms all my biases and comes from a source I don't recognize. That trips my anti-confirmation bias heuristics.
Can someone do a journalism on this and get 1-2 other independent sources?
Can someone do a journalism on this and get 1-2 other independent sources?
Not to be flippant, but why can’t you do that?
A journalist might have contacts in FEMA. Who should Joe Doe contact?
bingo
I feel like journalism, as an occupation, has had a hard time communicating why it exists over the last 20 years or so while trying to keep up with all the changes.
edit: A free primer on standards, re: confirmation.
One source can, with caution, be the basis of an article, as long as it's presented as unconfirmed. This can induce other sources to reach out to their media contacts, so it's useful.
Two sources is considered confirmed as long as they're independent. Journalists have gotten in trouble with double confirmation when it came out one cited the other.
Three independent sources is considered golden.
There's variation here if the source is the source, with actual authority on the subject, but other sources can add context they might not be willing or able to talk about.
I feel like journalism, as an occupation, has had a hard time communicating why it exists over the last 20 years or so while trying to keep up with all the changes.
edit: A free primer on standards, re: confirmation.
One source can, with caution, be the basis of an article, as long as it's presented as unconfirmed. This can induce other sources to reach out to their media contacts, so it's useful.
Two sources is considered confirmed as long as they're independent. Journalists have gotten in trouble with double confirmation when it came out one cited the other.
Three independent sources is considered golden.
There's variation here if the source is the source, with actual authority on the subject, but other sources can add context they might not be willing or able to talk about.
Well, because I'm not a journalist. I don't have the resources or connections to go and find this out. That's why we have professional journalists.
Wait, so you're not just asking for other articles around this, you're asking for a journalist to see your hacker news comment and provide you sources?
I am asking if any journalists, many of whom are active on social media and forums like this, with the resources and access have gotten independent confirmation and, perhaps, written about it for their publications, yes.
edit: I don't know why this is so vexing to sections of the YCombinatorati.
bonus edit after a reply since I'm rate limited for a while: IME people here are happy to share articles when people ask if there's more info. Hackers, at least a broad subset who loosely identify with the principles, love to share knowledge. Some even to the point of exfiltrating it! It's almost a defining characteristic.
That's why this is so vexing!
edit: I don't know why this is so vexing to sections of the YCombinatorati.
bonus edit after a reply since I'm rate limited for a while: IME people here are happy to share articles when people ask if there's more info. Hackers, at least a broad subset who loosely identify with the principles, love to share knowledge. Some even to the point of exfiltrating it! It's almost a defining characteristic.
That's why this is so vexing!
It's just an interesting take. Most people would go "I'll go find more new articles" instead of hoping that one comes by and falls into their lap.
hey it doesn’t hurt to ask
That's true, but it's an interest tactic to ask for the news to come to them.
"Tactic" is an interesting framing. This is a discussion. Some people who might want to participate are journalists who would already be in the process of confirming or have confirmation.
I'm not doing battle here. We're not at war. I'm asking for a free exchange of knowledge among people trying to be civil toward each other.
I'm operating on the assumption that a passing journalist with a source and an interest is already doing their job and, like most journalists, tries to keep it all free and public in recognizing that's best for the good of the public even if it's hard to fund that way.
I'm not doing battle here. We're not at war. I'm asking for a free exchange of knowledge among people trying to be civil toward each other.
I'm operating on the assumption that a passing journalist with a source and an interest is already doing their job and, like most journalists, tries to keep it all free and public in recognizing that's best for the good of the public even if it's hard to fund that way.
You're asking for a passing professional to do their job for free for you specifically while you wait.
> Can someone do a journalism on this and get 1-2 other independent sources?
Well NYC isn't happy about some actions:
* https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/statement-from-nyc-comp...
* https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook-pm/20...
Not sure if this is the same things as the what's in the OP's article.
Well NYC isn't happy about some actions:
* https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/statement-from-nyc-comp...
* https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook-pm/20...
Not sure if this is the same things as the what's in the OP's article.
Oh look this has already been flagged.
I think it’s important to recognize that HN is most likely supportive of the Trump/Musk regime. Remember that Gary Tan wanted to run the same playbook in the city of San Francisco.
Please keep this in mind when posting here.
Finally, depending on where we end up, I wonder how history will remember HN.
I think it’s important to recognize that HN is most likely supportive of the Trump/Musk regime. Remember that Gary Tan wanted to run the same playbook in the city of San Francisco.
Please keep this in mind when posting here.
Finally, depending on where we end up, I wonder how history will remember HN.
This shoud 100% not be flagged. IF people are asking for reasonable analyses, this is it.
As for HN, I've seen time based voting patterns that affect the upvote score. Still shouldn't be flagged. No matter how tired people are of politics, this is still critical.
As for HN, I've seen time based voting patterns that affect the upvote score. Still shouldn't be flagged. No matter how tired people are of politics, this is still critical.
> DOGE claims to be auditing FEMA. But sources within FEMA report that the DOGE employees are primarily “computer science guys” and do not understand the basics of financial management. In one instance, a coder brought in by DOGE confronted a FEMA staffer about mismanagement of funds. The FEMA staffer clarified that no funds were allocated during the time period in question and that the DOGE representative simply misunderstood the data.
That sounds thoroughly unremarkable by itself. A staffer asked for an explanation of something he was seeing and got one (he was incorrect about the data). This interaction repeats a zillion times per day for any consultancy project.
Is there any documented process in place to ensure that the staffer has to take the explanation into account?
Government workers have been relentlessly antagonized by Trump and his party. How can we be sure these situations are handled correctly and fairly, especially when the people doing the "auditing" don't know what they are doing due to missing qualifications?
Government workers have been relentlessly antagonized by Trump and his party. How can we be sure these situations are handled correctly and fairly, especially when the people doing the "auditing" don't know what they are doing due to missing qualifications?
simonsarris(1)
Consultants don’t get absolute power to make changes unilaterally.
And usually people given power in these institutions have to go through background checks.
They were first-principlesing it
I say this as a UKian with a constitutional monarch as head of state:
These actions suggest that today the United States seems to have a de facto King with far greater powers than even those held by George III at the time the founders decided that America did not need a King.
They might not be called that, but they have the ability to exert behaviours akin to an English monarch not seen much since Henry VIII. Arguably, we're heading into Magna Carta territory.
The checks and balances are about to get a big test. I hope they work, and I'm proven wrong.
These actions suggest that today the United States seems to have a de facto King with far greater powers than even those held by George III at the time the founders decided that America did not need a King.
They might not be called that, but they have the ability to exert behaviours akin to an English monarch not seen much since Henry VIII. Arguably, we're heading into Magna Carta territory.
The checks and balances are about to get a big test. I hope they work, and I'm proven wrong.
The checks and balances assumed the entire country didn't vote the exact same people into majorities in all 3 branches
SCOTUS did their part in declaring the POTUS effectively more equal than everyone else.
Its even worse than the same party having a majority everywhere.
Trump's cult-like pull and the associated threat of the world's richest man (who still talks about the dangers of the global elites with no sense of irony) bankrolling a primary against anyone who steps out of line have effectively erased the congress as an independent branch entirely.
There are Republicans in the house and senate and even Trump's own administration that I believe aren't aligned with what he is doing but they lack the spine to say so beyond the most superficial talk about their "concerns" (and then still voting for everything he demands).
Trump's cult-like pull and the associated threat of the world's richest man (who still talks about the dangers of the global elites with no sense of irony) bankrolling a primary against anyone who steps out of line have effectively erased the congress as an independent branch entirely.
There are Republicans in the house and senate and even Trump's own administration that I believe aren't aligned with what he is doing but they lack the spine to say so beyond the most superficial talk about their "concerns" (and then still voting for everything he demands).
> who still talks about the dangers of the global elites with no sense of irony
As with "DEI mayor", "urban youth", "rootless cosmopolitans", etc., it's a euphemism.
As with "DEI mayor", "urban youth", "rootless cosmopolitans", etc., it's a euphemism.
For what?
Trump won the popular vote with 49.8% of votes cast, let’s stop pretending the entire country gave him the mandate to do whatever he wants.
Unfortunately, it's winner take all, and I don't think he's ever cared about the consent of the people he's taking advantage of.
An eligible voter who doesn't vote is effectively a vote for the winner, so a majority was at least complicit.
“Complicit” is an interesting word choice here—as if a non-voter is somehow responsible for wrongdoing? What “wrong” was done here? Trump won because he was democratically elected by every measure we have, both popular vote and electoral college. If your candidate lost it’s because they didn’t earn the votes, have the message, or created the reason for that non-voter to vote for them. The candidate and campaign are more responsible for their loss than the non-voter. You are shifting blame to where it doesn’t belong.
Thats a poor reading of the effort the Republicans have put into ensuring they win.
Firstly, its not because of reasons that people win in America, not anymore. People didnt know that the ACA was Obamacare, or that Biden dropped out.
Fox and the GOP created an orwellian political power that has parasitized democratic processess.
Classic example would be climate change, in the 90s, when FOX was created.
Fox platformed cranks, and made them look legitimate. Republican lawmakers pointed to Fox news reports, and stalled if not killed climate change legislation.
The governing principle at that time, was to not provide credibility to cranks. However, shocked by the effectiveness of Fox, scientists decided to talk directly to viewers on Fox.
This resulted in them being fed to the media lions, because the goal of Fox was to discredit them, along with the ivory tower education systems.
Through this process, FOX and the GOP own the overton window for climate discussions. THEY decide what positions Dems must take.
Repeat this proces year after year, and eventually there is no place you can hold a position to win at a national level.
For state level elections this is different, apparently local knowledge overcomes this distorition field.
However, thats not the only trick.
Republicans are beholden to never grant Democrats any credibility. See Romneycare and Obamacare. It shocked me even then, that Repubs actually credited Obama for getting Osama.
This election, people remember Harris as being the Trans supporter. The Campaign itself never focused on this topic.
The Repubs sets the stage on which everyone dances.
Yes - the other candidate should earn peoples votes. They should create the right message.
Yes - as a voter, you should know when its not a fair fight.
Simply so that you can apply the right handicap when viewing candiates.
Firstly, its not because of reasons that people win in America, not anymore. People didnt know that the ACA was Obamacare, or that Biden dropped out.
Fox and the GOP created an orwellian political power that has parasitized democratic processess.
Classic example would be climate change, in the 90s, when FOX was created.
Fox platformed cranks, and made them look legitimate. Republican lawmakers pointed to Fox news reports, and stalled if not killed climate change legislation.
The governing principle at that time, was to not provide credibility to cranks. However, shocked by the effectiveness of Fox, scientists decided to talk directly to viewers on Fox.
This resulted in them being fed to the media lions, because the goal of Fox was to discredit them, along with the ivory tower education systems.
Through this process, FOX and the GOP own the overton window for climate discussions. THEY decide what positions Dems must take.
Repeat this proces year after year, and eventually there is no place you can hold a position to win at a national level.
For state level elections this is different, apparently local knowledge overcomes this distorition field.
However, thats not the only trick.
Republicans are beholden to never grant Democrats any credibility. See Romneycare and Obamacare. It shocked me even then, that Repubs actually credited Obama for getting Osama.
This election, people remember Harris as being the Trans supporter. The Campaign itself never focused on this topic.
The Repubs sets the stage on which everyone dances.
Yes - the other candidate should earn peoples votes. They should create the right message.
Yes - as a voter, you should know when its not a fair fight.
Simply so that you can apply the right handicap when viewing candiates.
No offense but my comment was a response to the suggestion that someone who didn’t vote somehow committed wrongdoing. Not sure how a diatribe against the “evils” of the GOP voter persuasion machine speaks much to that. It’s obvious to me both parties denigrate the other candidate through media and publicity.
My decision to not vote for Harris boiled down to my opinion that she failed in her one duty as VP, which was to effectively step in and govern in the event that Biden was unable to function as president. That much was painfully obvious during his debate, which exposed her dereliction of duty.
My decision to not vote for Harris boiled down to my opinion that she failed in her one duty as VP, which was to effectively step in and govern in the event that Biden was unable to function as president. That much was painfully obvious during his debate, which exposed her dereliction of duty.
We're getting wrapped up over the word "complicit." Fine, let's be neutral: "An eligible voter who doesn't vote, through inaction supports whoever ends up winning." The act of not voting can mean nothing but "I'm OK with whoever."
> The act of not voting can mean nothing but "I'm OK with whoever."
Or it can mean “I am not ok with either”. That is the reason I didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. Why should I participate when neither viable political party actually respects my vote enough to run a candidate that is worthy of a vote?
I don’t need to vote for the lesser of two evils or to feel like I voted for a winner.
Or it can mean “I am not ok with either”. That is the reason I didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. Why should I participate when neither viable political party actually respects my vote enough to run a candidate that is worthy of a vote?
I don’t need to vote for the lesser of two evils or to feel like I voted for a winner.
> I don’t need to vote for the lesser of two evils
One of them is promising that you won't be able to vote again. And are you doing anything to fight foor the changes needed to dismantle the two party system?
One of them is promising that you won't be able to vote again. And are you doing anything to fight foor the changes needed to dismantle the two party system?
I often vote for and support 3rd party candidates and their parties. Do you? Or are you content to just let your party just run shitty candidates every election cycle?
Also, I am not a Trump voter and have never been, but can y’all please stop taking snippets and quotes of his out of context? It’s so fucking tiring and intellectually dishonest and is one of the reasons he won this election. If you don’t know that your “won’t have to vote again” quote is out of context it would be intellectually honest of you to go watch the whole speech and understand the context and audience in which that was said. That way people like me who don’t like the man but happen to think truth is valuable and important in discourse don’t have to defend him.
Also, I am not a Trump voter and have never been, but can y’all please stop taking snippets and quotes of his out of context? It’s so fucking tiring and intellectually dishonest and is one of the reasons he won this election. If you don’t know that your “won’t have to vote again” quote is out of context it would be intellectually honest of you to go watch the whole speech and understand the context and audience in which that was said. That way people like me who don’t like the man but happen to think truth is valuable and important in discourse don’t have to defend him.
I'm not an American and am glad to enjoy a system that offers me a real sense of choice. From the outside a third party vote looks like a wasted vote and in the case of the last election essentially a vote for Trump. There's a lot you can do to push for electoral reforms between election cycles.
If an incident of mobbing occurs in a Norwegian school the bystanders are held to account as well as the actual perpetrators.
This is not even remotely equivalent. Making not intervening when a crime takes place means there is a crime taking place.
In the US elections are not a crime and “not voting” is not a crime.
In the US elections are not a crime and “not voting” is not a crime.
There are at least several non-US jurisdictions in which voting is compulsory so the /idea/ that not voting is equivalent to some kind of problem at least is quite plausible.
Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it true.
Fourth smallest margin in POTUS election history.
In case anyone was curious, I computed some popular margins of victory defined as (%popular vote of winner) - (%popular vote of highest other candidate).
I got the following small margins of victory smaller than the 1.5% in 2024, five of which are positive and five of which are negative.
-7.8% in 1824, 1.4% in 1844, -3% in 1876, 0% in 1880, 0.6% in 1884, -0.8% in 1888, 0.1% in 1960, 0.7% in 1968, -0.5% in 2000, -2.1% in 2016.
I got the following small margins of victory smaller than the 1.5% in 2024, five of which are positive and five of which are negative.
-7.8% in 1824, 1.4% in 1844, -3% in 1876, 0% in 1880, 0.6% in 1884, -0.8% in 1888, 0.1% in 1960, 0.7% in 1968, -0.5% in 2000, -2.1% in 2016.
Presidents aren't elected through popular votes. He won 312 to 226.
A difference of a few thousand people in a few specific states.
There have been cases before where both the Executive and Legislative branches have been held by the same party. What's different now is that Trump is trying to consolidate much more power in the Executive branch (an explicit Project2025 goal), and Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals (I mean, he did pardon all those who violently stormed the capitol and threatened to kill government officials). Trump's strategy (a smart one, I might add), is to push beyond the boundaries of the law as far and fast as he can and see what, if any, resistance he meets.
Nixon attempted something similar but Congress didn't let him get away with it (and passed the Impoundment Control Act, which Trump is now flouting).
Nixon attempted something similar but Congress didn't let him get away with it (and passed the Impoundment Control Act, which Trump is now flouting).
> Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals
They're afraid of their voters, as they should be, as Trump is more popular with their voters than any of them are. All Trump/Musk need to do is endorse an opponent in their primaries.
They're afraid of their voters, as they should be, as Trump is more popular with their voters than any of them are. All Trump/Musk need to do is endorse an opponent in their primaries.
Dont forget that this is by design. The decision to only vote along partisan lines and punish bipartisan efforts creates this force.
Behind this, is the desire to win elections at all costs/.
Behind this, is the desire to win elections at all costs/.
Yeah that's what I meant, but you expressed it more clearly.
> What's different now is that Trump is trying to consolidate much more power in the Executive branch
He's doing the exact opposite, shutting down and shrinking departments to reduce the power of the executive branch.
He's doing the exact opposite, shutting down and shrinking departments to reduce the power of the executive branch.
it's not just that - it assumed that the courts and legislature would not consent to losing their power.
electing a bunch of pathetic apparatchiks to the legislature and letting the Heritage Foundation choose a bunch of lunatics for the courts is why there's no counterbalancing force. the Founders assumed the other branches of government would have some self-respect.
electing a bunch of pathetic apparatchiks to the legislature and letting the Heritage Foundation choose a bunch of lunatics for the courts is why there's no counterbalancing force. the Founders assumed the other branches of government would have some self-respect.
pb7(5)
We're watching the checks and balances fail in real time. By the time the first court order comes through the DOGE boys are already doing something else somewhere else. The legal system can't create injunctions as fast as Trump can sign things. It's proving impossible for a legitimate system to keep up with the wanton pillaging.
Also courts can't act until someone sues for "harm" which they themselves suffered. That takes a long time, and by then, the damage is very difficult, or maybe impossible, to undo.
Yup. Hopefully they have good backups, but once money has been shuffled around is it possible to put it back? And not just in the abstract - this is FEMA we're talking about - lives are going to be lost.
I think it might actually be worse. I don't think the judiciary can enforce any of their court orders.
It is way worse than than that. If it all falls apart, the worst for Trump is to lose an election and retire to Florida. He has no real stake in any of this. The king is the king and the only way out is abdication, passing the problem to his own family.
I am so very happy we have a monarchy. I used to be against it, but the fact that no one person can wreak this kind of havoc is fantastic. And of course the king has really very little power.
I've turned into a monarchist (thanks to Trump)!
I am so very happy we have a monarchy. I used to be against it, but the fact that no one person can wreak this kind of havoc is fantastic. And of course the king has really very little power.
I've turned into a monarchist (thanks to Trump)!
> If it all falls apart, the worst for Trump is to lose an election and retire to Florida.
He doesn't have another election to lose. He gets 4 years (less a few weeks now) and then gets to retire from being POTUS. There are few consequences for him this term. For the Republicans, on the other hand, if DOGE and their trade wars and other things fail, they could be fucked for a decade or more trying to rebrand themselves.
He doesn't have another election to lose. He gets 4 years (less a few weeks now) and then gets to retire from being POTUS. There are few consequences for him this term. For the Republicans, on the other hand, if DOGE and their trade wars and other things fail, they could be fucked for a decade or more trying to rebrand themselves.
You're assuming there will be an election in four years which is contrary to his campaign promises.
> If it all falls apart, the worst for Trump is to lose an election and retire to Florida
Given his revocation of security clearances for Biden, depending on what happens, the stakes may be higher.
Given his revocation of security clearances for Biden, depending on what happens, the stakes may be higher.
Elected officials trying to do what they told voters they would do is literally the textbook definition of monarchy.
> Elected officials trying to do what they told voters they would do is literally the textbook definition of monarchy.
I expect that you intended to say "textbook definition of democracy", but the Freudian slip is quite something.
I expect that you intended to say "textbook definition of democracy", but the Freudian slip is quite something.
No no, its monarchism. Doing what his supporters voted for makes Trump a king.
At no point did I suggest he was doing something that wasn't voted for.
I merely suggested that what was happening seemed at odds with the intent of the founders of the United States, in that even in 18th century England it would have been perceived as vast over-reach of a monarch to behave in a similar manner.
If you're all happy with it, fine. It just seems remarkable, hence my original comment.
I merely suggested that what was happening seemed at odds with the intent of the founders of the United States, in that even in 18th century England it would have been perceived as vast over-reach of a monarch to behave in a similar manner.
If you're all happy with it, fine. It just seems remarkable, hence my original comment.
You don't get to vote to break laws. You can vote to change or remove laws, but that is not what is happening here.
That is not what many voted for. I personally know a few who voted with glee because Trump is a loose cannon and follows no decorum.
[deleted]
You don't think people should be able to vote to break laws, but objectively, people can vote for literally any reason they please. There are no laws regulating how voters choose to vote, nor could there be.
I never voted for Trump, but I did vote for my state to defy federal cannabis laws. Guess what, my vote to shit on federal laws was legal.
I never voted for Trump, but I did vote for my state to defy federal cannabis laws. Guess what, my vote to shit on federal laws was legal.
Heh. I suppose thats true if the candidate said they would be a Monarch.
Different thing if they uphold the checks and bakances.
Different thing if they uphold the checks and bakances.
lupusreal(2)
ramshanker(3)
simianparrot(4)
here is doge
https://www.doge.gov/
Where are all the $500 hammers and toilet seats?
Some of the items on there may be things he doesn't like personally, but things like $1.4M to contract out the operation of the Department of Education's mailroom are everyday operating expenses.
Some of the items on there may be things he doesn't like personally, but things like $1.4M to contract out the operation of the Department of Education's mailroom are everyday operating expenses.
A list of Tweets and the Savings site is empty.
Doge Much Transparency
Doge Much Transparency
one big sad thing among others is how the doge meme, which carried with it a lot of fun and kindness baggage (the dogecoin community made a ton of random donations) ended up used by people who are the diametrical opposite.
Reminds me of another co-opted symbol that had it's meaning transformed to its opposite.
Let’s hack it?
I've seen rumors that the server isn't on US soil. Any confirmation of that?
It's fronted by Cloudflare, so not sure how someone would assess that, or why it wouldn't be on US soil (or why that would matter).
Because generally speaking, it's not a good idea to have machines with possible links to sensitive government data not under the jurisdiction of the government that owns that data.
https://xkcd.com/932/
(Don't get me wrong, I think the existence of DOGE is a farce, but this website is literally just a blog... It's not hosting secrets, and getting caught up in conspiracy theories of it being 'hosted offshore' is missing the forest for the trees)
Edit: After reading https://www.404media.co/anyone-can-push-updates-to-the-doge-... (which lol, what competence!) it sounds like the 'not on american soil' is bowdlerized from the fact that they're running on Cloudflare pages so there isn't a 'server'.
(Don't get me wrong, I think the existence of DOGE is a farce, but this website is literally just a blog... It's not hosting secrets, and getting caught up in conspiracy theories of it being 'hosted offshore' is missing the forest for the trees)
Edit: After reading https://www.404media.co/anyone-can-push-updates-to-the-doge-... (which lol, what competence!) it sounds like the 'not on american soil' is bowdlerized from the fact that they're running on Cloudflare pages so there isn't a 'server'.
[deleted]
It's just a front end for tweets from that account. Clicking on any of the posts takes you to the original.
Wow bunch of people are sore for downvoting you for this. lol!
The security and intelligence apparatus made bet big that they could prevent a second trump election, after quite successfully destabilising the first -- they failed. And now the very system of unaccountable executive power which has been built up, is now being used against the executive itself.
This makes me increasingly concerned for a similar turn of events in the UK (ie., given the many actions of the UK state to enable state propaganda, censorship of the UK internet, and tracking of all citizens -- how these will be used if a far-right party comes into power.
This makes me increasingly concerned for a similar turn of events in the UK (ie., given the many actions of the UK state to enable state propaganda, censorship of the UK internet, and tracking of all citizens -- how these will be used if a far-right party comes into power.
Ah, here we go with the "invisible deep state" theory that secretly controls -- or tries to -- things behind the scenes.
Does make for good movies though.
Does make for good movies though.
It's not invisible, nor is it much of a secret. Nor does it "control" anything in particular. Much of the coordination against trump by NGOs funded through USAID, publicly, is just online -- you can just go watch recordings of the conferences.
It's just an institutional consensus about Trump's style of populism which gave profound motivation to a large number of groups, to organise against his perceived threat. The issue is how the US government was involved -- not the activity itself -- , eg., leaning on mass media organisations to censor americans -- unconstitutional, and widely documented. You may think it's "for the good", but either way, its unconstitutional for the US gov. to do that. The US gov cannot demand social media censor americans, it's a prominent part of the bill of rights.
The US gov. funds many programmes under the guise of aid, or sponsorship of "democracy" or "independent media", or, eg., "healthcare".
Consider how egreious it would be for the US gov to lie about funding healthcare, but instead to use that as a guise for one of your "impossible, movie plot lines..."
Oh wait, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_fake_vaccination_campaign_...
FYI, this happened to the far-left in the 60s & 70s, leading to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee --- it's just now happening to Trump and the far-right. Kinda funny the right have discovered it, after decades of calling the left nutjob conspiracy theorists.
It's just an institutional consensus about Trump's style of populism which gave profound motivation to a large number of groups, to organise against his perceived threat. The issue is how the US government was involved -- not the activity itself -- , eg., leaning on mass media organisations to censor americans -- unconstitutional, and widely documented. You may think it's "for the good", but either way, its unconstitutional for the US gov. to do that. The US gov cannot demand social media censor americans, it's a prominent part of the bill of rights.
The US gov. funds many programmes under the guise of aid, or sponsorship of "democracy" or "independent media", or, eg., "healthcare".
Consider how egreious it would be for the US gov to lie about funding healthcare, but instead to use that as a guise for one of your "impossible, movie plot lines..."
Oh wait, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_fake_vaccination_campaign_...
FYI, this happened to the far-left in the 60s & 70s, leading to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee --- it's just now happening to Trump and the far-right. Kinda funny the right have discovered it, after decades of calling the left nutjob conspiracy theorists.
> Consider how egreious it would be for the US gov to lie about funding healthcare, but instead to use that as a guise for one of your "impossible, movie plot lines..."
Sorry, what part of the CIA hatching hare-brained schemes is incredulous? (You should have linked to acoustakitty.)
Sorry, what part of the CIA hatching hare-brained schemes is incredulous? (You should have linked to acoustakitty.)
People like to pretend the intelligence agencies don't operate this way today, and this was some past insanity.
I mean, even more relevant would be the leaked recording of state department officials discussing who to replace the elected president of ukraine with in 2013.
I just chose the HIV thing, since it's relevant how we interpret USAID's programmes -- in particular, ones which fund the NGOs that run censorship campaigns and kompromat collection (eg., the occrp).
None of this is very remarkable, of course. The more concerning thing is how this has become turned inward on the USA itself via the internet, mass media, and so on.
I mean, even more relevant would be the leaked recording of state department officials discussing who to replace the elected president of ukraine with in 2013.
I just chose the HIV thing, since it's relevant how we interpret USAID's programmes -- in particular, ones which fund the NGOs that run censorship campaigns and kompromat collection (eg., the occrp).
None of this is very remarkable, of course. The more concerning thing is how this has become turned inward on the USA itself via the internet, mass media, and so on.
> People like to pretend the intelligence agencies don't operate this way today
Who? How do you think soft power works?
> how this has become turned inward on the USA itself
The CIA isn’t conducting political campaigns at home. To the extent we have intelligence operations running amok in our bureaucracy, it’s DOGE.
Honestly, this edginess-seeking behaviour reminds me of students in New York and San Francisco convinced they’re being silenced. No, the truth is nobody cares.
Who? How do you think soft power works?
> how this has become turned inward on the USA itself
The CIA isn’t conducting political campaigns at home. To the extent we have intelligence operations running amok in our bureaucracy, it’s DOGE.
Honestly, this edginess-seeking behaviour reminds me of students in New York and San Francisco convinced they’re being silenced. No, the truth is nobody cares.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
...oops, the law preventing that was amended under obama, to allow it. Drat.
(cf. the original Smith-Mundt act preventing it, and the Modernization Act of 2012 allowing it again. The original, of course, created because law makers were terrified of what would happen if this was turned inward.)
...oops, the law preventing that was amended under obama, to allow it. Drat.
(cf. the original Smith-Mundt act preventing it, and the Modernization Act of 2012 allowing it again. The original, of course, created because law makers were terrified of what would happen if this was turned inward.)
Did you know we also have NPR and PBS? A literal public-TV censorship board?
Also, we’re talking about the CIA. Your conspiracy theory has them waiting for a law to be repealed before acting? Do you think a single DOGE bro hired a lawyer before acting?
> because law makers were terrified of what would happen if this was turned inward
What nonsense. Where did you read this? We had a massive and celebrated domestic propaganda board during the Great Depression and WWII.
Also, we’re talking about the CIA. Your conspiracy theory has them waiting for a law to be repealed before acting? Do you think a single DOGE bro hired a lawyer before acting?
> because law makers were terrified of what would happen if this was turned inward
What nonsense. Where did you read this? We had a massive and celebrated domestic propaganda board during the Great Depression and WWII.
You can just read the wikipedia on it,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act#Congre...
And note the FBI's concerns there at the end too. This isnt about NPR. It's about The State Department and the intelligence services which were localised under the department at the time.
Let's just be very simple about this though. We have in 2012 a repeal of a law which existed to ban the state department ("the war office" in old-speak) from propagandizing US citizens. And as the 2010s progress, gov. officials demanding social media companies censor americans. We have NGOs created with USAID and DARPA funding to enable mass censorship and profiling. And we have, during the pandemic, the deployment of all of this machinery at once.
Now, this is the indisputable, publicly obvious, everyone-can-see it layer. Now imagine one layer deeper: how does this actually play out in terms of executive action?
I am, fyi, not right wing; and not pro-trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act#Congre...
And note the FBI's concerns there at the end too. This isnt about NPR. It's about The State Department and the intelligence services which were localised under the department at the time.
Let's just be very simple about this though. We have in 2012 a repeal of a law which existed to ban the state department ("the war office" in old-speak) from propagandizing US citizens. And as the 2010s progress, gov. officials demanding social media companies censor americans. We have NGOs created with USAID and DARPA funding to enable mass censorship and profiling. And we have, during the pandemic, the deployment of all of this machinery at once.
Now, this is the indisputable, publicly obvious, everyone-can-see it layer. Now imagine one layer deeper: how does this actually play out in terms of executive action?
I am, fyi, not right wing; and not pro-trump.
> You can just read the wikipedia on it
Smith-Mundt was a restriction on State. It did nothing to restrict the CIA, or USAID for that matter.
It was also motivated by concerns that State harboured communist sympathies. Saying the Act was motivated by concerns around "what would happen if [American propaganda] was turned inward" is factually false, unsupported by contemporaneous accounts of the bill's backers.
> I am, fyi, not right wing; and not pro-trump
Didn't think you were (and neither am I).
Deep State comes in two flavours. One is the lizard-man crap that appeals to people who can't handle uncertainty. The other is a hypothesis about power in America. The section of the latter that overlaps with the left is based on a sub-hypothesis: that money buying messaging equals power.
The problem with this linkage is it's empirically false. Jeb Bush outspent Trump. Harris outspent Trump. Cambridge Analytica was 2016's AI scare (and Democrats' turn at election denial). Money buys power, but through direct messaging, the acquisition of proximity and--sometimes--bribes.
> we have, during the pandemic, the deployment of all of this machinery at once
And? Nothing happened. People who dissented had the space in which to dissent. They did so openly, peacefully and in spaces old and new.
To put it bluntly, we don't give our adversaries abroad that room. To the extent DOGE might help America, it's in showing us what a real deep state looks like. I'm hoping it doesn't come to it. But someone's e.g. Social Security or government-contract payments failing after an offensive tweet, not due to civic action or private citizens' actions, but due to a Kafkaesque arm of the state--that is the power of the deep state.
Smith-Mundt was a restriction on State. It did nothing to restrict the CIA, or USAID for that matter.
It was also motivated by concerns that State harboured communist sympathies. Saying the Act was motivated by concerns around "what would happen if [American propaganda] was turned inward" is factually false, unsupported by contemporaneous accounts of the bill's backers.
> I am, fyi, not right wing; and not pro-trump
Didn't think you were (and neither am I).
Deep State comes in two flavours. One is the lizard-man crap that appeals to people who can't handle uncertainty. The other is a hypothesis about power in America. The section of the latter that overlaps with the left is based on a sub-hypothesis: that money buying messaging equals power.
The problem with this linkage is it's empirically false. Jeb Bush outspent Trump. Harris outspent Trump. Cambridge Analytica was 2016's AI scare (and Democrats' turn at election denial). Money buys power, but through direct messaging, the acquisition of proximity and--sometimes--bribes.
> we have, during the pandemic, the deployment of all of this machinery at once
And? Nothing happened. People who dissented had the space in which to dissent. They did so openly, peacefully and in spaces old and new.
To put it bluntly, we don't give our adversaries abroad that room. To the extent DOGE might help America, it's in showing us what a real deep state looks like. I'm hoping it doesn't come to it. But someone's e.g. Social Security or government-contract payments failing after an offensive tweet, not due to civic action or private citizens' actions, but due to a Kafkaesque arm of the state--that is the power of the deep state.
It's not in my interest to discuss the actions of the intelligence system in the US/UK, so I wont. I'm inclined never to address the subject again, to be honest.
Tulsi Gabbard's hearing may be a tiny bit illuminating. The DOGE wrecking ball might lead to a new Church-committe-style hearing, there's already hearings in the house on the "censorship-industrial complex" but they're too naive at the moment. DOGE still think the "DEI" funding of USAID has something to do with being leftwing (rather than, say, the funding counter-government movements).
Meh. In many ways, it's all too late now. "How should the intelligence services conduct themselves?" has never been a question open to democratic debate, nor one any mass media outlet would dream of posing. Today, esp. it isnt one we citizens should raise -- leave it to whomever is able to roll the dice "at the top".
Tulsi Gabbard's hearing may be a tiny bit illuminating. The DOGE wrecking ball might lead to a new Church-committe-style hearing, there's already hearings in the house on the "censorship-industrial complex" but they're too naive at the moment. DOGE still think the "DEI" funding of USAID has something to do with being leftwing (rather than, say, the funding counter-government movements).
Meh. In many ways, it's all too late now. "How should the intelligence services conduct themselves?" has never been a question open to democratic debate, nor one any mass media outlet would dream of posing. Today, esp. it isnt one we citizens should raise -- leave it to whomever is able to roll the dice "at the top".
> USAID has something to do with being leftwing (rather than, say, the funding counter-government movements)
Yes, against our allies. Literally how soft power works. (As well as funding insurgencies against our adversaries’ proxies.)
Zero evidence it’s been used domestically. Which makes sense, because that would be dumb. Use those resources to attack directly.
> "How should the intelligence services conduct themselves?" has never been a question open to democratic debate
This is just excusing laziness. I’ve worked on privacy and intelligence bills, including giving comment and adding revisions at the federal level. The problem is it’s boring work and like two constituents call about it. The IC has been weak since the Iraq War and never put up a fight directly; they relied on their neocon warhawks to be their surrogates. Which mostly worked because the overlap between people who care about this and people who are nihilistic about civics to the point of being electorally irrelevant is huge.
Yes, against our allies. Literally how soft power works. (As well as funding insurgencies against our adversaries’ proxies.)
Zero evidence it’s been used domestically. Which makes sense, because that would be dumb. Use those resources to attack directly.
> "How should the intelligence services conduct themselves?" has never been a question open to democratic debate
This is just excusing laziness. I’ve worked on privacy and intelligence bills, including giving comment and adding revisions at the federal level. The problem is it’s boring work and like two constituents call about it. The IC has been weak since the Iraq War and never put up a fight directly; they relied on their neocon warhawks to be their surrogates. Which mostly worked because the overlap between people who care about this and people who are nihilistic about civics to the point of being electorally irrelevant is huge.
[deleted]
The CIA has done a ton of bad shit - especially in other countries - over the past 50 years, but that’s a completely separate matter from a “deep state” controlling things and trying to prevent Trump’s election.
OK, well I was choosing one of you "movie plot" cases to show you that the CIA does not care if it runs movie plot programmes.
The mechanism of anti-trump coordination has yet really to be briefed out, and wikiepedia will be dragged kicking and screaming before there's an article on it. Give it a decade, perhaps.
For now, if you want examples here's the atlantic council (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council) -- training journalists to treat emerging rightwing politics as disinformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSAz0agYEeI
The mechanism of anti-trump coordination has yet really to be briefed out, and wikiepedia will be dragged kicking and screaming before there's an article on it. Give it a decade, perhaps.
For now, if you want examples here's the atlantic council (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council) -- training journalists to treat emerging rightwing politics as disinformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSAz0agYEeI
A lot of rightwing stuff that circulates is disinformation -- there are plenty of examples of it. Trump is an inveterate liar about almost everything (this is easily fact-checked), and his followers have adopted the same strategy (lies are powerful because they are usually more shocking and travel faster than a boring fact-check).
Not to say that other politicians don't lie or distort the truth, but Trump has taken this to a whole other level.
Not to say that other politicians don't lie or distort the truth, but Trump has taken this to a whole other level.
The issue isn't whether that's true or not (personally, I think you're 80-90% correct). If private citizens, or organisations, want to get together and develop political counter-narratives that's fine -- entirely within the constitution, and always a good idea.
The issue here is the top-down astroturfing from state-sponsored orgs whose boards are the last x heads of the CIA/etc.
At the moment there is no strong firewall between private polticial organisation, and state power, within the USA. You may think that's fine if its being used against trump, but it isnt.
Not least, since the example the AC gave in that video was trump tweeting "witch hunt" about the russia investigation -- calling this disinformation. Now, who was right? Trump. There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, it was a witch hunt.
The only thing the muller report found was trump obstructed the investigation, it completely exonerated any supposed connections to russia. Then you might ask: where did all these intelligence dossiers come from?
And why is the atlantic council training journalists to label trumps poltical speech about this investigation as disinformation? (HINT: to enable its censorship etc.)
The issue here is the top-down astroturfing from state-sponsored orgs whose boards are the last x heads of the CIA/etc.
At the moment there is no strong firewall between private polticial organisation, and state power, within the USA. You may think that's fine if its being used against trump, but it isnt.
Not least, since the example the AC gave in that video was trump tweeting "witch hunt" about the russia investigation -- calling this disinformation. Now, who was right? Trump. There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, it was a witch hunt.
The only thing the muller report found was trump obstructed the investigation, it completely exonerated any supposed connections to russia. Then you might ask: where did all these intelligence dossiers come from?
And why is the atlantic council training journalists to label trumps poltical speech about this investigation as disinformation? (HINT: to enable its censorship etc.)
>The only thing the muller report found was trump obstructed the investigation, it completely exonerated any supposed connections to russia.
It did not exonerate him, quite explicitly. [1] The report found a lot of evidence of trump team making contact with Russians. You say yourself that the investigation was obstructed.
There was also this indictment on co-ordinated Russian funded interference in NA pundit/social media space. [2] Not to mention similar groups (I'm not sure about the status of the investigation in [2] at this point) have already been dismissed [3].
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778
[2] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/two-rt-employees-ind...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293521/foreign-influen...
It did not exonerate him, quite explicitly. [1] The report found a lot of evidence of trump team making contact with Russians. You say yourself that the investigation was obstructed.
There was also this indictment on co-ordinated Russian funded interference in NA pundit/social media space. [2] Not to mention similar groups (I'm not sure about the status of the investigation in [2] at this point) have already been dismissed [3].
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778
[2] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/two-rt-employees-ind...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293521/foreign-influen...
> Trump. There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, it was a witch hunt.
We know today that the 2016 Trump Campaign:
- Had over 100 meetings with Russian officials, lied and said they had 0
- Amplified information hacked by Russia, implored for more publicly
- Met with Russian spy at Trump's home to discuss relaxed relations in return for dirt on Clinton, later lied about the existence of that meeting
- Shared internal campaign polling data with a Russian intel officer.
These facts are not in dispute by anyone, and are presented in the Mueller Report, and the Senate Intel Committee Report on Russian Active Measures. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-sele...
We know today that the 2016 Trump Campaign:
- Had over 100 meetings with Russian officials, lied and said they had 0
- Amplified information hacked by Russia, implored for more publicly
- Met with Russian spy at Trump's home to discuss relaxed relations in return for dirt on Clinton, later lied about the existence of that meeting
- Shared internal campaign polling data with a Russian intel officer.
These facts are not in dispute by anyone, and are presented in the Mueller Report, and the Senate Intel Committee Report on Russian Active Measures. From Wikipedia:
The Senate Intelligence Committee assessed that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's "high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services" was a "grave counterintelligence threat".[50] The foremost individual was Manafort's employee Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian.[50] The committee identified Kilimnik as a "Russian intelligence officer"; describing that Manafort and Kilimnik had a "close and lasting relationship" even through the 2016 election.[53] Manafort repeatedly tried to "secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik", including "sensitive internal polling data or Campaign strategy".[53]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-sele...
Sure, it turns out there was no big Trump/Russia conspiracy. But there were a lot of signs of Russian interference in the elections that was certain worth an investigation -- which did its job and then submitted its report, like lots of other special investigations. When you think about it, it's much more of an important topic to investigate than whether Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office. So I disagree that it was a "witch hunt" and therefore agree that Trump's labeling it as such was disinformation. Basically 90% (pulled that number out of the hat, but feels pretty close) of what Trump said while in office was incorrect, disinformation, or straight out lies. I mean, he's so far outside the normal distribution that there's no other president to compare him with. So yeah, I'd be training journalists to label Trump's speech as disinformation too.
The difference in the UK is, there is no recourse. It's actually why America exists as a state to begin with. They have parliamentary supremacy and no enshrined checks and balances against parliament. Nor do they have a formal constitution. And the populace is disarmed. A sufficiently united parliament can in theory do what it wants. The only practical risk they have is a coordinated coup by the military.
The US system, while far from perfect, does have enshrined checks and balances. A formal constitution that limits the powers of branches. And an armed populace with a history of protest and unrest when things don't go their way.
The US system, while far from perfect, does have enshrined checks and balances. A formal constitution that limits the powers of branches. And an armed populace with a history of protest and unrest when things don't go their way.
> The US system, while far from perfect, does have enshrined checks and balances.
The current administration is having a good think about fixing that:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/02/trump-v...
The current administration is having a good think about fixing that:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/02/trump-v...
> the very system of unaccountable executive power which has been built up, is now being used against the executive itself
Musk is a fever dream incorporated by its own paranoia. There was never a deep state as potent and destructive (to say nothing of incompetent) as DOGE.
The problem with its illegality is twofold. On one hand, this will be a multibillion-dollar process to undo. If it persists, it means the next D President can just order the Treasury to e.g. shred student loan records and wire money to whomever they want and ignore anything the Congress or courts do. (If there is no next D President, we shift to an imperial playbook and it will be good living for anyone already rich and really bad for anyone who isn’t.)
Musk is a fever dream incorporated by its own paranoia. There was never a deep state as potent and destructive (to say nothing of incompetent) as DOGE.
The problem with its illegality is twofold. On one hand, this will be a multibillion-dollar process to undo. If it persists, it means the next D President can just order the Treasury to e.g. shred student loan records and wire money to whomever they want and ignore anything the Congress or courts do. (If there is no next D President, we shift to an imperial playbook and it will be good living for anyone already rich and really bad for anyone who isn’t.)
Was that executive power really accrued as a result of a resistance to Trump during his first term? My understanding is that the executive branch has been exerting more power for while now, regardless of who has been in office.
And does it really matter? The authority for doing many of the things Trump's current admin is doing don't actually fall to the executive branch; they're doing them anyway.
And does it really matter? The authority for doing many of the things Trump's current admin is doing don't actually fall to the executive branch; they're doing them anyway.
Well it's more initially as a response to the internet (as an uncontrolled media landscape) and so-called "hybrid warfare" -- but it was deployed against trump, and increasingly so-called "far-right populism" against which it was "necessary" to deploy the full resources of the executive to "preserve democracy" (claims I don't entirely disagree with, but tactics which are nevertheless unconstitutional).
Consider that Wikipedia lists the Biden connection to ukraine as a "conspiracy theory" but the trump connection to Russia as "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials" (there is no Trump connection to Russia, this was an invention of the security services; and there are as many "Links" between Biden associates and Ukraine -- but, as with trump, there is no Joe Biden-Ukraine link).
Consider that Wikipedia lists the Biden connection to ukraine as a "conspiracy theory" but the trump connection to Russia as "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials" (there is no Trump connection to Russia, this was an invention of the security services; and there are as many "Links" between Biden associates and Ukraine -- but, as with trump, there is no Joe Biden-Ukraine link).
This is how a democracy slowly falls into fascism. Not because it's a overnight coup d'état, but because people freely give power away instead of resisting, and just agree to actions they never would otherwise.