US Securities and Exchange Commission beginning to bring on DOGE staff(reuters.com)
reuters.com
US Securities and Exchange Commission beginning to bring on DOGE staff
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-securities-exchange-commission-beginning-onboard-doge-staff-email-says-2025-03-28/
141 comments
By using the word "efficient" without any reference point to what they want to make more efficient. It's similar to Make America Great Again. Great at what? Just GREAT!
It appeals to people who think government is inefficient and wasteful. Government doesn't HAVE TO BE inefficient and wasteful, just people need to believe it. And if media channels are hammering people over the head with the message that government is inefficient, then the official-sounding Department of Government Efficiency will save the day and rid the government of these evil inefficiency.
What these people may not realize is that the US government was intentionally designed to be inefficient. The checks and balances of three branches of government are constitutionally imposed inefficiency to make sure that one individual or group of individuals doesn't take the country in an efficiently harmful direction.
So if people want a hyper-efficient government, then be honest about rewriting the Constitution.
It appeals to people who think government is inefficient and wasteful. Government doesn't HAVE TO BE inefficient and wasteful, just people need to believe it. And if media channels are hammering people over the head with the message that government is inefficient, then the official-sounding Department of Government Efficiency will save the day and rid the government of these evil inefficiency.
What these people may not realize is that the US government was intentionally designed to be inefficient. The checks and balances of three branches of government are constitutionally imposed inefficiency to make sure that one individual or group of individuals doesn't take the country in an efficiently harmful direction.
So if people want a hyper-efficient government, then be honest about rewriting the Constitution.
>cost the taxpayer nothing
>transaction fees imposed on the financial sector
This is literally a tax.
>transaction fees imposed on the financial sector
This is literally a tax.
I have no idea how anyone is disagreeing with you. Looking it up in the dictionary, government imposed fees are absolutely taxes.
Sure its a tax, but its not paid from "general funds that every taxpayer contributes.
We could call postage for the usps a tax too, but nobody thinks of it that way.
We could call postage for the usps a tax too, but nobody thinks of it that way.
Eh, that's kind of moot since most "tax payers" have no idea where there money actually goes and money is fungible. Do it implies that tax payers only care about part of their money. What is actually accomplished if we don't see the link? Of course there are all sorts of ways to hide taxes from the end payer, such as gas tax. If someone is looking to reduce taxes, then they must also look for the hidden ones. Continuing to think of tax payers as only the general fund contributors only allows the deception to persist.
Sure, but what's the end game?
Arguably, the will of the people (not the corporations) is to lower individual taxation—working class joe schmo isn't upset that companies and the wealthy have to deal with the SEC, he's upset about the income tax that he personally pays.
Ok, so, maybe you argue removing this tax will indirectly help jo schmo because corporations, banks, stockbrokers, hedge funds, and their leadership are such nice fellows who, given some extra cash flow always let it funnel back to the economy and ultimately to the actual workers and producers in the economy, who, after all, sweat for them and deserve a living wage, right?
I don't see how this form of cut and deregulation is supposed to help the majority of people unless you believe in trickle down style economics, an idea based on the moral rectitude and good will of the wealthy, which, at this point I think you have to be a complete and utter fool to believe in. Part of the entire reason the SEC exists is precisely because you cannot rely on the individual morals of financiers to protect the country from financial exploitation and overall collapse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecora_Commission
If this is a "tax" it's one of the few taxes we actually have on the rich and on corporations, and any reductions stand to make them even more untrammeled and powerful. It's a mistake to assume this will have any positive material benefit on the average citizen.
Arguably, the will of the people (not the corporations) is to lower individual taxation—working class joe schmo isn't upset that companies and the wealthy have to deal with the SEC, he's upset about the income tax that he personally pays.
Ok, so, maybe you argue removing this tax will indirectly help jo schmo because corporations, banks, stockbrokers, hedge funds, and their leadership are such nice fellows who, given some extra cash flow always let it funnel back to the economy and ultimately to the actual workers and producers in the economy, who, after all, sweat for them and deserve a living wage, right?
I don't see how this form of cut and deregulation is supposed to help the majority of people unless you believe in trickle down style economics, an idea based on the moral rectitude and good will of the wealthy, which, at this point I think you have to be a complete and utter fool to believe in. Part of the entire reason the SEC exists is precisely because you cannot rely on the individual morals of financiers to protect the country from financial exploitation and overall collapse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecora_Commission
If this is a "tax" it's one of the few taxes we actually have on the rich and on corporations, and any reductions stand to make them even more untrammeled and powerful. It's a mistake to assume this will have any positive material benefit on the average citizen.
I'm not sure how you think this is a tax only on the rich and the corporations. Many middle class people have 401ks, IRAs, 529s, and brokerage accounts. These must be held at SEC institutions, and their fees are part of the cost. I'm not saying the SEC should be reduced, as I don't know if they have a surplus. But I am saying if you want to reduce taxes, this is still something that is a tax and can be looked into for efficiencies.
Are you ignoring context for some pretense, or do you not understand that statements have contextual meanings?
Its a Tarif!
...although, by this logic, so is the entire financial system.
How so? Not everything is a government imposed fee. If it was, then there would be no way to transfer money if the entire system was a tax as all the value would go towards the tax leaving none to transfer for goods or services.
The parent post is making the point that a transaction fee is literally a tax. The financial sector is nothing but transaction fees. Their whole revenue model is interspersing themselves into the mechanics of moving money between a buyer and a seller, and charging a cut for it. A world where everyone pays cash for everything, or even has a centralized ledger where balances are credited and debited by the government, or a decentralized ledger on a blockchain where the same happens, has no transaction fees and no financial sector.
They do perform a service for the transaction fees they charge, but then, so does the government.
They do perform a service for the transaction fees they charge, but then, so does the government.
It's often the government that makes you use the financial system.
You fool. Musk paid 300 million to kill the SEC.
"Exclusive: Interim SEC chief cast sole vote against suing Musk" - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/interim-sec-chief-cast-sole...
"Exclusive: Interim SEC chief cast sole vote against suing Musk" - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/interim-sec-chief-cast-sole...
> How do you make something that costs nothing more efficient?
By fraudulently weakening the regulatory body, it makes scamming investors easy. This is more efficient for scammers. Not for investors.
By fraudulently weakening the regulatory body, it makes scamming investors easy. This is more efficient for scammers. Not for investors.
Somebody will get insanely rich on this. Unless people believe that these DOGErs are principled honest state servants.
I don't doubt they're servants of the state (at least partially), I just question exactly which state it is that they're in service to.
Not even they believe that.
Richer than Pelosi of Crenshaw? That'd be something!
Separate problem, but yes that's a problem. Both sides are equally derelict in their duties in addressing that one.
Pelosi is hardly worth more than $100 million. Someone with skillz could do way better.
Also I love this argument that’s like “this bad person did bad things, let’s follow their lead and have other people do bad things.
If all the Democrats jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too?
Also I love this argument that’s like “this bad person did bad things, let’s follow their lead and have other people do bad things.
If all the Democrats jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too?
I do believe these these DOGErs are principled honest state servants, until proven otherwise.
Chill, this isn't a court of law, people can have opinions
Well, if you want to give your opinion in public, maybe you can give some explanation for your cynicism too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kQNwJ4H_w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kQNwJ4H_w
You should go check out early Sam Bankman-Fried interviews. Dude was super altruistic.
Hah, you do realize that joker was a product of the left, and he was spewing all the right words that the left likes to hear? He tried to invest in Elon's companies, and Elon refused because he could smell the fraud from a mile out.
Pick one of the DOGE employees and try to articulate what fraud they are trying to commit for themselves?
Pick one of the DOGE employees and try to articulate what fraud they are trying to commit for themselves?
While you appear to want a hyper partisan discussion, that wasn’t my point. The issue is that saying the right things doesn’t mean someone has good motives or will do good things. SBF talked a lot about altruism and doing good, and people across the board believed him. The real problem is that being good at using the right language can cover up bad behavior.
As for the DOGE folks, I didn’t say they’re committing fraud. I just think a slick PR video shouldn’t be taken at face value. A little skepticism is healthy, especially when there’s hype and money involved.
They've exempted themselves from standard accountability tools like FOIA, so we can't really look into what they're doing. Their position is that the public has no right to that level of visibility.
As for the DOGE folks, I didn’t say they’re committing fraud. I just think a slick PR video shouldn’t be taken at face value. A little skepticism is healthy, especially when there’s hype and money involved.
They've exempted themselves from standard accountability tools like FOIA, so we can't really look into what they're doing. Their position is that the public has no right to that level of visibility.
Actually, there is a partisan distinction that I am trying to make here, so I guess I can't not sound partisan. And the distinction is this:
The left gets too hung up on morality. So, they are prone to trusting slick talkers like SBF or Newsom, who say the right things and use the right language, with no actual substance.
Now, as to the DOGE folks, they have presumably given up their lucrative businesses/careers, and joined this effort to help the nation (according to them). Can you atleast give me a theorical story about how one of these individuals could have a sinister plan to defraud the american people?
If they are doing forensics on govt finances, I am not sure what is there to FOIA. Plus, they are publishing extensive data on doge.gov. Nevertheless, in principle, doge shouldn't be exempt from FOIA.
The left gets too hung up on morality. So, they are prone to trusting slick talkers like SBF or Newsom, who say the right things and use the right language, with no actual substance.
Now, as to the DOGE folks, they have presumably given up their lucrative businesses/careers, and joined this effort to help the nation (according to them). Can you atleast give me a theorical story about how one of these individuals could have a sinister plan to defraud the american people?
If they are doing forensics on govt finances, I am not sure what is there to FOIA. Plus, they are publishing extensive data on doge.gov. Nevertheless, in principle, doge shouldn't be exempt from FOIA.
Your first sentence goes right with Elon's 'Compassion is bad'. That we must first come from a place of immorality/no compassion. Crazy talk.
And ah yes, working for the richest man on earth is now 'giving up your career'. What an Orwellian starting point to your argument. Together your two points are a friggin dystopia, you realize that right? The rich are sacrificing for the good of cutting the social contract/safety net of the poor, government must be cruel and immoral. Crazy talk.
They changed how they publish on doge.gov when people called out that their claims were bullshit on the largest denominated savings listed. Please explain why changing to release less information than they originally did because it was being used to make them accountable is actually better.
And ah yes, working for the richest man on earth is now 'giving up your career'. What an Orwellian starting point to your argument. Together your two points are a friggin dystopia, you realize that right? The rich are sacrificing for the good of cutting the social contract/safety net of the poor, government must be cruel and immoral. Crazy talk.
They changed how they publish on doge.gov when people called out that their claims were bullshit on the largest denominated savings listed. Please explain why changing to release less information than they originally did because it was being used to make them accountable is actually better.
They might believe that they are, or might publicly claim that they are. That doesn't mean that they are. It should be pretty clear that, if they intend to be honest state servants just trying to make things more efficient and less expensive, they're doing a pretty bad job of it. They are already fudging their savings numbers to make it look 3+ orders of magnitude bigger than it is, and even the savings that they did find has mostly been short-term savings that have obvious, real, negative long-term consequences primarily for Americans in America and little consequence for anyone else.
What DOGE is doing is like getting up at 5 AM and sealing off the gas line to your furnace, then claiming that you saved a big chunk of your family's monthly finances, when in reality your heating bill is 1/100th the cost of your rent or mortgage, and you're going to be pretty sad that your furnace doesn't work when the winter comes, and you're going to have to pay a professional to un-break your heat, probably a lot more than you saved to begin with. And pissing off your whole family in the meantime.
Even in an alternate reality where Musk and Trump have genuinely good intentions to reform waste and corruption (narrator: they don't), it would be hard to imagine a worse way of going about it.
What DOGE is doing is like getting up at 5 AM and sealing off the gas line to your furnace, then claiming that you saved a big chunk of your family's monthly finances, when in reality your heating bill is 1/100th the cost of your rent or mortgage, and you're going to be pretty sad that your furnace doesn't work when the winter comes, and you're going to have to pay a professional to un-break your heat, probably a lot more than you saved to begin with. And pissing off your whole family in the meantime.
Even in an alternate reality where Musk and Trump have genuinely good intentions to reform waste and corruption (narrator: they don't), it would be hard to imagine a worse way of going about it.
Literally everything they have been doing proves that they are not.
Give one example.
The US government doesn’t run in the way they are acting like it does. The executive branch exists to execute laws as written by congress; it’s in the name. If congress passed no laws the president would have nothing to do besides negotiate with other foreign heads of state and be commander in chief. Most of what DOGE is cutting has been legislated. Which is not something allowed to be done by president or the executive branch. Of course they can make the case to congress that certain agencies shouldn’t exist, and pass laws removing or defunding them. Or they could pass a law giving DOGE powers.
Of course there are modern legal theories which disagree with what I’ve said above. However they are modern, untested, and largely ahistorical.
Of course there are modern legal theories which disagree with what I’ve said above. However they are modern, untested, and largely ahistorical.
It has been proven otherwise: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/doge-staffer-big-balls-prov...
What about these people says to you that they are "principled" or "honest" when they've already been outed doing exactly the opposite of those traits?
What about these people says to you that they are "principled" or "honest" when they've already been outed doing exactly the opposite of those traits?
[deleted]
How is the entire country just passively accepting this...
This the most tepid, pathetic generation there has ever been.
This the most tepid, pathetic generation there has ever been.
Passively? Actively. A majority of voters handed over all the keys to these guys in full knowledge of the kind of people they are and what they wanted to do.
> A majority of voters handed over all the keys
Due to the weird way our nation works, it was a minority of voters. (A plurality in this case, though our electoral system also doesn't require that.)
But yeah, the keys were handed over by the populace as much as was required by how our elections occur.
I keep wondering where the line is, for those on the right. It seems like wherever you would draw a line in the sand … we're past that point.
Due to the weird way our nation works, it was a minority of voters. (A plurality in this case, though our electoral system also doesn't require that.)
But yeah, the keys were handed over by the populace as much as was required by how our elections occur.
I keep wondering where the line is, for those on the right. It seems like wherever you would draw a line in the sand … we're past that point.
>I keep wondering where the line is, for those on the right. It seems like wherever you would draw a line in the sand … we're past that point.
Been thinking about this for years. I've come to the conclusion that there might be two seperate groups.
1. People that have nothing left to lose. Their life is ruined due to their community falling on hard times and if they see the people they perceive at fault suffering then they are satisfied.
2. People who love to watch the other side suffer but have themselves not felt enough pain yet. It has to really hurt for them to stop. I think the economy crashing in 08 was a moment where many of them quieted down for a tiny bit until the pain stopped.
Been thinking about this for years. I've come to the conclusion that there might be two seperate groups.
1. People that have nothing left to lose. Their life is ruined due to their community falling on hard times and if they see the people they perceive at fault suffering then they are satisfied.
2. People who love to watch the other side suffer but have themselves not felt enough pain yet. It has to really hurt for them to stop. I think the economy crashing in 08 was a moment where many of them quieted down for a tiny bit until the pain stopped.
The people with truly nothing left to lose are probably worried more about existing than voting, but I do generally agree otherwise. I think some resentment is possibly along lines of smarts/education and the roles and trappings those normally bring?
I also think there's a polarisation between people predisposed mentally for survival and others for thriving. Scott Alexander has a piece about this that I found very interesting: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/04/a-thrivesurvive-theory...
I also think there's a polarisation between people predisposed mentally for survival and others for thriving. Scott Alexander has a piece about this that I found very interesting: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/04/a-thrivesurvive-theory...
Eligible voters that did not vote due to apathy/laziness/politics are complicit.
GP's comment was about accepting this actively vs passively, not about being complicit.
Every democratic country gets the government they deserve.
not a majority. as I wrote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42963075 [edit fixed table formatting and labels]
Assuming I did my sums right, DT won by approximately 1.5%. Hardly a ringing endorsement. He got 31.59% of the voter-eligible (VE) population. I count active yes votes as for a candidate and non-voter passive no votes. Some non-voters support a candidate, but since they didn't vote, their non-votes count against each candidate.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2024 https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-1...
Assuming I did my sums right, DT won by approximately 1.5%. Hardly a ringing endorsement. He got 31.59% of the voter-eligible (VE) population. I count active yes votes as for a candidate and non-voter passive no votes. Some non-voters support a candidate, but since they didn't vote, their non-votes count against each candidate.
EC %EC pop vote %of ballots %of VE population
Democratic Kamala Harris Tim Walz 226 42% 75,019,230 48.34% 30.66%
Republican Donald J. Trump J.D. Vance 312 58% 77,303,568 49.81% 31.59%
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2024 https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-1...
OK, 0.2% off a majority of voters. Still plenty of people actively calling for this.
> Passively? Actively. A majority of voters handed over all the keys to these guys in full knowledge of the kind of people they are and what they wanted to do.
I wouldn't say "full knowledge," but it's not like the other guys were any good either. There was a huge spike in inflation and right before the election it became clear they were lying about their leader's obvious incapacity. All the options voters had were bad.
Personally, I blame the Democrats for this. Winning against Trump should've been easy, but they managed to fuck it up in all kinds of ways. They knew the stakes (and said so, loudly), but for some unfathomable reason they thought that meant they could coast. They also don't appear to know what the fuck they should be doing now, and seem to want to keep coasting.
I wouldn't say "full knowledge," but it's not like the other guys were any good either. There was a huge spike in inflation and right before the election it became clear they were lying about their leader's obvious incapacity. All the options voters had were bad.
Personally, I blame the Democrats for this. Winning against Trump should've been easy, but they managed to fuck it up in all kinds of ways. They knew the stakes (and said so, loudly), but for some unfathomable reason they thought that meant they could coast. They also don't appear to know what the fuck they should be doing now, and seem to want to keep coasting.
We had a full four-year trial period for this administration, plus four years of additional public shenanigans, plus a published detailed action plan (Project 2025). I don’t know what else they could have done to make it obvious what you were voting for.
The Democrats put up an alternative that wasn’t very exciting, but it’s ridiculous to claim the choices were somehow equally bad. One of them was boring, the other was an unprecedented level of bad, like literally historically bad.
The Democrats put up an alternative that wasn’t very exciting, but it’s ridiculous to claim the choices were somehow equally bad. One of them was boring, the other was an unprecedented level of bad, like literally historically bad.
> The Democrats put up an alternative that wasn’t very exciting, but it’s ridiculous to claim the choices were somehow equally bad. One of them was boring, the other was an unprecedented level of bad, like literally historically bad.
Well, the Democrats lost to that "unprecedented level of bad," so I think you're missing something.
Well, the Democrats lost to that "unprecedented level of bad," so I think you're missing something.
From all good Democrats out there, they managed to come up with a mummy as a candidate so it is kind of self dug grave
> Personally, I blame the Democrats for this.
Is there any reason in particular people should not be blaming Republican voters for "this"? The US had four full years of Trump and it was plain as day what he'd get up to from his campaign, and voters still think he was a good choice. At what point does the US stop coddling Republican voters and blaming Democrats, even if they ran a bad campaign?
The idea that a voter is ignorant and stupid to realize the consequences of their actions that they need a "campaign" telling them is frankly absurd.
Is there any reason in particular people should not be blaming Republican voters for "this"? The US had four full years of Trump and it was plain as day what he'd get up to from his campaign, and voters still think he was a good choice. At what point does the US stop coddling Republican voters and blaming Democrats, even if they ran a bad campaign?
The idea that a voter is ignorant and stupid to realize the consequences of their actions that they need a "campaign" telling them is frankly absurd.
I think this is a great point, and people honestly don't say it enough.
There was a clearly worse choice this cycle, even if you felt both options were not ideal.
Apparently, though, most people do not have a memory capable of spanning back past four years time. That and, depressingly, many people are woefully uninformed voters.
But this is a natural consequence of poor labor structure. Work the wage earner to the bone so that they have no time to actually consider their options, learn, and make informed decisions. Cut their leisure to a minimum so that every vote is a vote of vibes and gut feeling.
I feel this myself when assessing local candidates. I would love to develop a complete picture of each candidate and their beliefs, but with what time?
There was a clearly worse choice this cycle, even if you felt both options were not ideal.
Apparently, though, most people do not have a memory capable of spanning back past four years time. That and, depressingly, many people are woefully uninformed voters.
But this is a natural consequence of poor labor structure. Work the wage earner to the bone so that they have no time to actually consider their options, learn, and make informed decisions. Cut their leisure to a minimum so that every vote is a vote of vibes and gut feeling.
I feel this myself when assessing local candidates. I would love to develop a complete picture of each candidate and their beliefs, but with what time?
> Is there any reason in particular people should not be blaming Republican voters for "this"?
Because if the Democrats want to be the grown ups, they've got to act like it. Not keep pointing at the other guy and saying "he sucks, vote for me."
Because if the Democrats want to be the grown ups, they've got to act like it. Not keep pointing at the other guy and saying "he sucks, vote for me."
I’m baffled. Are you saying the Republicans were acting more like grownups? I think the Democrats learned too late that the voters didn’t want grownups and weren’t sure how to respond.
> I’m baffled. Are you saying the Republicans were acting more like grownups?
No, I'm saying they're both acting like children in their own ways.
No, I'm saying they're both acting like children in their own ways.
You would think the republicans did themselves in by claiming tariffs would lower prices. And not really having an economic policy, claiming to have a concept of a plan, but really not even that. The lack of substance, and the effectiveness of that lack of substance, was definitely enough to throw the Democrats off their game.
Seriously, how do you even begin to counteract whatever it was the Republicans were throwing around? Narcissistic wild claims (Gaza/Ukraine wouldn’t have been attacked if I was president!), exaggeration (Biden’s non-recession was the worst ever!), the downright bizarre (I’m prettier than Kamala). It’s like running against Bizarro, what sane person would have even considered voting for him anyways?
The American voters are definitely at fault here, not the Democrats. They were given the smelliest, harmful garbage and they actually voted for it. What consequences come from this are their fault, not the Democrats that didn’t run a crazy bizarre candidate.
Seriously, how do you even begin to counteract whatever it was the Republicans were throwing around? Narcissistic wild claims (Gaza/Ukraine wouldn’t have been attacked if I was president!), exaggeration (Biden’s non-recession was the worst ever!), the downright bizarre (I’m prettier than Kamala). It’s like running against Bizarro, what sane person would have even considered voting for him anyways?
The American voters are definitely at fault here, not the Democrats. They were given the smelliest, harmful garbage and they actually voted for it. What consequences come from this are their fault, not the Democrats that didn’t run a crazy bizarre candidate.
I think this is a bit disingenuous. It was more like "he sucks, he has no plan for X and his plan makes no factual sense for Y, vote for me, here's my plan for X and my plan for Y" (remember the whole concept of a plan thing?)
The bad leadership is still there so they will try to continue this nonsense next cycle. Whats worse is they are beginning to groom the next generation of grifters. We saw this with the start of Gen-Z Democratic 'influencers' this cycle.
If it makes you feel any better, the rich are about to get a whole lot richer.
Well, I for once dislike what they are doing, but mostly because what they are doing is both ineffective and loud. Instead of carefully, efficiently dismantling the federal regulatory state into nothing, they are not only failing to actually achieve much but giving the whole project a bad name.
Which protest do I join? "Handsaws, not chainsaws! But do cut the trunk, and as close to the ground as you can!"
Which protest do I join? "Handsaws, not chainsaws! But do cut the trunk, and as close to the ground as you can!"
Honestly, our legal remedies are quite limited:
1. All three branches of government are controlled by the MAGA Party. I call it the MAGA Party, not the Republican Party, since the Republican Party has long been purged of serious Never Trumper opposition.
2. There are not enough Democrats in Congress to impeach and convict Trump of any unconstitutional acts.
3. There is no mechanism available to recall congresspeople or to trigger a special election, and the next election of congresspeople isn’t until November 2026, a year and a half away.
4. I live in a blue state (California) with blue representatives (San Francisco Bay Area) at the federal level. What good would it do me to write senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla or congressman Mark DeSaulnier?
5. The people who have the most power to change things are people who have red representatives, since they have the 2026 midterm elections to worry about. However, many of the people living in such districts voted for Trump and are largely on board with the MAGA agenda. Why would they write their representatives?
6. We could protest through demonstrations and boycotts, but the protests need to be effective in order for them to not simply be demonstrative. Moreover, protests run the risk of getting hijacked by extremists and saboteurs, and authoritarians love exploiting crises to crack down on dissent. Protesting could be a potential trap.
It’s a very bleak situation right now due to MAGA’s control over all three branches of government. The best we could hope for is:
1. Start planning for the 2026 elections NOW! Elections cost a lot of money and require a lot of planning. If MAGA loses control of Congress in January 2027, this could add a much-needed check to MAGA and could help with the 2028 election season.
2. With the way Trump, Elon, and others in power are carrying on, eventually segments of the MAGA voter base will be harmed by MAGA policies. I particularly see Trump’s tariffs to be quite painful. If enough Republican voters start openly expressing their discontent for MAGA policies, then this is a chance for MAGA to lose absolute control of power in January 2027.
1. All three branches of government are controlled by the MAGA Party. I call it the MAGA Party, not the Republican Party, since the Republican Party has long been purged of serious Never Trumper opposition.
2. There are not enough Democrats in Congress to impeach and convict Trump of any unconstitutional acts.
3. There is no mechanism available to recall congresspeople or to trigger a special election, and the next election of congresspeople isn’t until November 2026, a year and a half away.
4. I live in a blue state (California) with blue representatives (San Francisco Bay Area) at the federal level. What good would it do me to write senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla or congressman Mark DeSaulnier?
5. The people who have the most power to change things are people who have red representatives, since they have the 2026 midterm elections to worry about. However, many of the people living in such districts voted for Trump and are largely on board with the MAGA agenda. Why would they write their representatives?
6. We could protest through demonstrations and boycotts, but the protests need to be effective in order for them to not simply be demonstrative. Moreover, protests run the risk of getting hijacked by extremists and saboteurs, and authoritarians love exploiting crises to crack down on dissent. Protesting could be a potential trap.
It’s a very bleak situation right now due to MAGA’s control over all three branches of government. The best we could hope for is:
1. Start planning for the 2026 elections NOW! Elections cost a lot of money and require a lot of planning. If MAGA loses control of Congress in January 2027, this could add a much-needed check to MAGA and could help with the 2028 election season.
2. With the way Trump, Elon, and others in power are carrying on, eventually segments of the MAGA voter base will be harmed by MAGA policies. I particularly see Trump’s tariffs to be quite painful. If enough Republican voters start openly expressing their discontent for MAGA policies, then this is a chance for MAGA to lose absolute control of power in January 2027.
Chuck "Vichy Democrat" Schumer really removed the only lever that the opposition party had, at all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jatnk4/chuck_schume...
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5327600/house-democrats...
This is the worse thing to happen to the US since Trump got back into office.
https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jatnk4/chuck_schume...
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5327600/house-democrats...
This is the worse thing to happen to the US since Trump got back into office.
Schumer had no leverage. If the budget had not passed, Musk and DOGE would have used that as a excuse to purge even more government employees.
This was the excuse, but it doesn't hold water. The admin were actively trying to get people to endorse the CR. Arguably, the shut down would have been enough of a limit point and potential catastrophe that they would not have been able to actually use it to effect a "takeover"—instead it might've been the necessary fuel to effect a turning point toward restricting some of these efforts—they know they cannot gut everything, the goal is to keep a skeleton in place so that they can keep up the appearance of "improvement" while they dismantle, a full shut down would have made that parlor trick ineffective.
I don't know if Schumer had other motivations or if he just made the biggest blunder of his political career, either way it has not turned out well for him—not only are people actively calling for him to be replaced, it's clear that history will not remember this supposedly necessary shut down prevention as something "heroic".
I don't know if Schumer had other motivations or if he just made the biggest blunder of his political career, either way it has not turned out well for him—not only are people actively calling for him to be replaced, it's clear that history will not remember this supposedly necessary shut down prevention as something "heroic".
They needed democrats to vote to pass the CR. A government shutdown would be better than give them a rubber stamp. You are parroting lies.
Oh you missed that we hate the SEC lol
It is a creature of the New Deal where many of its programs exist on shaky constitutional ground, existing primarily because standing with the courts is difficult to achieve
Although the New Deal is heralded in the history books, most programs of the new deal were declared unconstitutional within 10 years, and everything that remains should be heavily scrutinized with that knowledge
The SEC stands out like a sore thumb when you really look at it
When its not blatantly separating classes, it is the state arm of FINRA and openly captured.
Just keep EDGAR for financial reports and thats it. They can’t even explicitly define what insider trading is and isn’t.
It is a creature of the New Deal where many of its programs exist on shaky constitutional ground, existing primarily because standing with the courts is difficult to achieve
Although the New Deal is heralded in the history books, most programs of the new deal were declared unconstitutional within 10 years, and everything that remains should be heavily scrutinized with that knowledge
The SEC stands out like a sore thumb when you really look at it
When its not blatantly separating classes, it is the state arm of FINRA and openly captured.
Just keep EDGAR for financial reports and thats it. They can’t even explicitly define what insider trading is and isn’t.
What do you expect the average person to do about it? Protests are happening on a weekly basis. What are YOU doing about it?
It's easy to accuse others of being "tepid and pathetic" from the comfort of your own home.
It's easy to accuse others of being "tepid and pathetic" from the comfort of your own home.
The current protests are tame and quite frankly pathetic. If your protests aren't strong enough that the government fears you, there's no reason to believe an apathetic government will even acknowledge you.
Until the citizens of the US are willing to shut things down, expect nothing to change. Look to other countries for examples of effective protest and understand that effective protest requires sacrifice, not just an afternoon walking around with a sign.
Until the citizens of the US are willing to shut things down, expect nothing to change. Look to other countries for examples of effective protest and understand that effective protest requires sacrifice, not just an afternoon walking around with a sign.
The government isn't going to fear anything that's a protest unless it affects their reelection. It would be helpful if you give examples of the other protests you reference, as I think you might be lacking verbosity and other words may be more accurate to use.
Strike reelection and replace with power.
For that reason, if I was seeking change, I'd go aggressively after any Republican who isn't shutting this sort of thing down. Seek public statements in opposition or link them as complicit. Do it in a way that has a lasting effect. Trump will flame out. Musk's fallback is wealth. But there are others quietly riding on their efforts who will then wash their hands of them when the opportunity arises.
I see a lot of comments like this from people not even willing to take the step of going to a protest in the first place. Expecting someone else to generate the critical mass needed to effect the change you're talking about, without lifting a finger themselves.
The people "spending an afternoon walking around with a sign" are doing a lot more than the people shitting on them for it. Mass movements have to start somewhere, they don't come out of thin air.
Why not criticize all the people sitting at home, rather than calling the ones actually trying "pathetic"?
The people "spending an afternoon walking around with a sign" are doing a lot more than the people shitting on them for it. Mass movements have to start somewhere, they don't come out of thin air.
Why not criticize all the people sitting at home, rather than calling the ones actually trying "pathetic"?
For protests to have any bite they must be coordinated, focused and persistent. While neither the countries largest unions, nor the opposition is calling for any direct action (be they demonstrations, boycotts, or general strikes) it is unlikely that they will be any of the three.
Now protests can be demonstrative and the more you protest the likelier you are at protesting again, and if the climate is right some organizations might join and call for others to participate. But what usually happens though is police violence suppressing them as soon as they look like they are gaining any steam (see e.g. Occupy Wall Street or BLM).
That said, as long as the opposition and the large unions are lame, any direct action will remain pretty restricted.
Now protests can be demonstrative and the more you protest the likelier you are at protesting again, and if the climate is right some organizations might join and call for others to participate. But what usually happens though is police violence suppressing them as soon as they look like they are gaining any steam (see e.g. Occupy Wall Street or BLM).
That said, as long as the opposition and the large unions are lame, any direct action will remain pretty restricted.
> Why not criticize all the people sitting at home, rather than calling the ones actually trying "pathetic"?
This is quite the whataboutism. Just because I criticize the protestors doesn't mean I'm defending people that don't protest.
You're right, it's a start. But pragmatically it's still not meaningful. Until the protests are strong enough that the government actually feels fear there is no reason to expect anything to happen. That's just reality.
This is quite the whataboutism. Just because I criticize the protestors doesn't mean I'm defending people that don't protest.
You're right, it's a start. But pragmatically it's still not meaningful. Until the protests are strong enough that the government actually feels fear there is no reason to expect anything to happen. That's just reality.
It's a whole lot more meaningful than the people who sit at home waiting for someone else to do something. Again, movements always start somewhere.
If the protest is ineffective then the protest is ineffective. I don't care how hard you tried, I care how effective you were. Pragmatically, if the protest doesn't change anything, it's not any better than sitting at home. If that protest leads to bigger protests that ultimately change something, then that matters.
Yes, everything has to start somewhere. But that doesn't mean every start is meaningful if it goes nowhere.
Yes, everything has to start somewhere. But that doesn't mean every start is meaningful if it goes nowhere.
Huh? I think you've reached a reduction ad absurdium that would suggest quietism as the best policy, you claim:
protests aren't meaningful unless they get results but protests also have to start somewhere but these starts have no results so better not to start
Do you really expect a singular protest which will change the world order over night? It might give us some personal satisfaction to claim others are ineffective and weak, but in the annals of history, that amounts to even less than a sign bearing march. If you really want to make an impact put forward some positive prescriptions, like the strikes you mentioned, I agree that actual strikes would be a good step. I hope you are actively sharing these recommendations to people who can organize and not just putting forward diffuse ineffectual critique to strangers on hacker news
protests aren't meaningful unless they get results but protests also have to start somewhere but these starts have no results so better not to start
Do you really expect a singular protest which will change the world order over night? It might give us some personal satisfaction to claim others are ineffective and weak, but in the annals of history, that amounts to even less than a sign bearing march. If you really want to make an impact put forward some positive prescriptions, like the strikes you mentioned, I agree that actual strikes would be a good step. I hope you are actively sharing these recommendations to people who can organize and not just putting forward diffuse ineffectual critique to strangers on hacker news
I never said you shouldn't protest. I said the current protests are pathetic.
Fair enough. I will say that you do not need to explicitly say something for your line of argumentation to imply it as a logical consequence. I would stress that such a judgement (that the effort is pathetic) is not constructive. What we need right now are concrete, constructive, positive suggestions on how to make these efforts more effective. Value judgements like this, as much as they might make us feel better by giving us a claim to superiority, accomplish nothing.
> I will say that you do not need to explicitly say something for your line of argumentation to imply it as a logical consequence.
Maybe you should read my actual comments instead of jumping to conclusions. In my first comment I made it clear that protests are useless until the government fears you. If I can ignore you easily, so can the government. Nobody gives a shit about you holding a sign. Until you can make the government scared of you as far as I'm concerned you may as well sit your ass at home.
I'm not here to validate your feelings or cheer you on. I'm pointing out why you're failing and you're snapping back like I give a shit. You're welcome to ignore me just as easily as it is for me to ignore the current protests.
Maybe you should read my actual comments instead of jumping to conclusions. In my first comment I made it clear that protests are useless until the government fears you. If I can ignore you easily, so can the government. Nobody gives a shit about you holding a sign. Until you can make the government scared of you as far as I'm concerned you may as well sit your ass at home.
I'm not here to validate your feelings or cheer you on. I'm pointing out why you're failing and you're snapping back like I give a shit. You're welcome to ignore me just as easily as it is for me to ignore the current protests.
Protests have never caused political change. Not once in history. Protests cannot cause political change.
They do a few things, but actually causing change is not one of them. They show how many people support something; they group those people together enabling the spread of ideas; they group those people together enabling the state apparatus to take them all down in one go.
They do a few things, but actually causing change is not one of them. They show how many people support something; they group those people together enabling the spread of ideas; they group those people together enabling the state apparatus to take them all down in one go.
Musk is out there calling Tesla protestors terrorists. If what you're doing is enough to get you labelled a terrorist by the opposition, then you're doing something they fear.
Not entirely an answer, but the judiciary is being somewhat existentially threatened by the effective.
"They" are referring to Tesla vandalism as domestic terrorism (it's criminal vandalism and seriously generous, yes, but if setting a car on fire is domestic terrorism then lots of countries have more terrorists than they thought).
"They" are black-bagging students who dare to suggest that maybe Israel shouldn't bomb Gaza so much.
"They" refer to any difference of opinion as activism from radical lefty loonies.
Fear is being sown in the general populace. But the rowdy Town Halls around the country are great signs of hope and resistance.
The tepid ones are the spineless Republican representatives being actively derelict in their duty to their country, still attempting to defend Trump and Elon despite their legitimately worried and angry constituencies.
"They" are referring to Tesla vandalism as domestic terrorism (it's criminal vandalism and seriously generous, yes, but if setting a car on fire is domestic terrorism then lots of countries have more terrorists than they thought).
"They" are black-bagging students who dare to suggest that maybe Israel shouldn't bomb Gaza so much.
"They" refer to any difference of opinion as activism from radical lefty loonies.
Fear is being sown in the general populace. But the rowdy Town Halls around the country are great signs of hope and resistance.
The tepid ones are the spineless Republican representatives being actively derelict in their duty to their country, still attempting to defend Trump and Elon despite their legitimately worried and angry constituencies.
> "They" are referring to Tesla vandalism as domestic terrorism (it's criminal vandalism and seriously generous, yes, but if setting a car on fire is domestic terrorism then lots of countries have more terrorists than they thought).
The intent behind the vandalism is what makes it terrorism instead of just vandalism.
The intent behind the vandalism is what makes it terrorism instead of just vandalism.
Rolling back the last 5 years of spending to save 15% of the federal budget maybe doesn’t require folks to do much about it?
Since these guys are mostly targeting non-defense discretionary spending, cutting 15% of the federal budget means cutting literally everything.
I’d guess lots of people don’t actually want the entire government minus the military, social security, and medicaid eliminated, whether they admit it (or realize it) or not. Like the FDIC is pretty nice.
Also non-defense discretionary funding has not actually increased that much in recent years. There was a spike in 2020 due to COVID, but it has returned to pre-covid levels.
I’d guess lots of people don’t actually want the entire government minus the military, social security, and medicaid eliminated, whether they admit it (or realize it) or not. Like the FDIC is pretty nice.
Also non-defense discretionary funding has not actually increased that much in recent years. There was a spike in 2020 due to COVID, but it has returned to pre-covid levels.
I don't know anything about the FDIC being eliminated. I see a lot of unnecessary overseas spending getting eliminated. I see a ton of real estate getting eliminated.
$130B added up real quick and it's only been a month. You can see the "Wall of Receipts" here, which is updated about every 2 weeks (in my personal experience) https://doge.gov/savings
$130B added up real quick and it's only been a month. You can see the "Wall of Receipts" here, which is updated about every 2 weeks (in my personal experience) https://doge.gov/savings
They're doing no such thing, of course. They're targeting political enemies and anything that hinders their donors/puppet masters from getting richer at the expense of everyone else. The effect on spending will be minimal, and smaller than the (negative) effect on income.
"targeting political enemies and anything that hinders their donors/puppet masters from getting richer at the expense of everyone else"
Give some examples.
Atleast DOGE is trying to provide data (https://doge.gov/).
Give some examples.
Atleast DOGE is trying to provide data (https://doge.gov/).
Threatening to de-fund universities.
Threatening law firms that have previously been on the other side of the argument from Trump's various court cases.
Black-bagging students who write articles and take part in (and maybe even, shock-horror, organise) protests (in both these case: exercise their "right" to free speech).
There are daily updates to a lot of these examples.
DOGE's "data" hasn't exactly been consistent. It's been needing a lot of on-going correction and has been attempting to take credit for a lot of things that required no active participation (contracts reaching their natural end, contracts that ended under the previous administration but paperwork remains to officially end it, and various other examples). Amongst various other failures of understanding of the underlying information.
Threatening law firms that have previously been on the other side of the argument from Trump's various court cases.
Black-bagging students who write articles and take part in (and maybe even, shock-horror, organise) protests (in both these case: exercise their "right" to free speech).
There are daily updates to a lot of these examples.
DOGE's "data" hasn't exactly been consistent. It's been needing a lot of on-going correction and has been attempting to take credit for a lot of things that required no active participation (contracts reaching their natural end, contracts that ended under the previous administration but paperwork remains to officially end it, and various other examples). Amongst various other failures of understanding of the underlying information.
"threatening to de-fund universities"
- you mean the multi-billion endowment private universities that charge 60 grand a year?
"Black-bagging students who write articles and take part in (and maybe even, shock-horror, organise) protests (in both these case: exercise their "right" to free speech)." - any citizens you can point to?
RE DOGE, can you point to any inaccuracies on doge.gov? literally everything is listed out, so should be easy to point out.
RE donors/puppet masters from getting richer at the expense of everyone else. - who are these donors and puppet masters? Elon's net worth has probably gone down. And for a guy who has created the most wealth in history arguably, doesn't need to get into government to secure a few lucrative contracts for himself. More likely that you are deranged sir.
"Black-bagging students who write articles and take part in (and maybe even, shock-horror, organise) protests (in both these case: exercise their "right" to free speech)." - any citizens you can point to?
RE DOGE, can you point to any inaccuracies on doge.gov? literally everything is listed out, so should be easy to point out.
RE donors/puppet masters from getting richer at the expense of everyone else. - who are these donors and puppet masters? Elon's net worth has probably gone down. And for a guy who has created the most wealth in history arguably, doesn't need to get into government to secure a few lucrative contracts for himself. More likely that you are deranged sir.
Tufts University PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk[0]
University of Alabama doctoral student Alireza Doroudi[1]
[0]: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/03/28/ice-kidnap...
[1]: https://newrepublic.com/post/193253/ice-iranian-internationa...
University of Alabama doctoral student Alireza Doroudi[1]
[0]: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/03/28/ice-kidnap...
[1]: https://newrepublic.com/post/193253/ice-iranian-internationa...
Well, that is your opinion. I am quite happy with what is going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kQNwJ4H_w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kQNwJ4H_w
Unless sarcasm, I don't envy you your learning journey over the next few years.
Best of luck, and allow yourself to be forgiving of your past self.
Best of luck, and allow yourself to be forgiving of your past self.
Hope you have the honesty to do the same.
I will be very surprised, but if the Trump / Elon administration results in a better state of affairs for the world as a whole, then I will be eating a LOT of my own words, and I'll do it happily because "a better state of affairs for the world" is the kind of progress I want to see.
Totally and absolutely that is the outcome I would prefer.
There are just too many data points so far in the wrong direction in such a short amount of time that I can't see even a satisfactory outcome, never mind an outcome better than what existed prior.
On the flipside: the co-operation of European countries is a good outcome, and a version of Europe that can defend itself against Russian aggression without any US assistance is a better situation than a worse one. I don't think it's good that NATO is essentially dead, but something better has a chance of rising from those ashes.
Totally and absolutely that is the outcome I would prefer.
There are just too many data points so far in the wrong direction in such a short amount of time that I can't see even a satisfactory outcome, never mind an outcome better than what existed prior.
On the flipside: the co-operation of European countries is a good outcome, and a version of Europe that can defend itself against Russian aggression without any US assistance is a better situation than a worse one. I don't think it's good that NATO is essentially dead, but something better has a chance of rising from those ashes.
"better state of affairs for the world" would be hard to argue one way or the other, so I doubt you will need to eat your words.
any significant achievements of the previous administration in bringing about a "better state of affairs for the world"?
any significant achievements of the previous administration in bringing about a "better state of affairs for the world"?
Relatively adequate recovery after a global pandemic might be one, investments into significant infra programs might be another, even with long time horizons. The last administration wasn't perfect by any means, but it arguably did not take any actions that directly make life worse for the average person. This administration is actively putting forth policy that weaken america's economic and sociopolitical position globally and directly disrupt active industry...you are rooting for people who are directly working against your own economic interest and also doing lasting damage to the general political process that we have followed in various iterations for years (unless you are million/billionaire, in which case, congrats)
"investments into significant infra programs might be another, even with long time horizons."
- yes, really long horizons. case in point - https://youtu.be/NcZxaFfxloo?si=uRQ9gL6j7pRzyPhA
"it arguably did not take any actions that directly make life worse for the average person." - I don't think you've talked to an average person. They are quite upset.
"you are rooting for people who are directly working against your own economic interest" - No actually. They have a plan and they have articulated it. It may not work in the end, but it is not a forgone conclusion. And they are most definitely striving to help the average person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSma9suyp24, https://youtu.be/182ckTL2KBA?si=x6cRwNeMgAVFLTq0.
"it arguably did not take any actions that directly make life worse for the average person." - I don't think you've talked to an average person. They are quite upset.
"you are rooting for people who are directly working against your own economic interest" - No actually. They have a plan and they have articulated it. It may not work in the end, but it is not a forgone conclusion. And they are most definitely striving to help the average person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSma9suyp24, https://youtu.be/182ckTL2KBA?si=x6cRwNeMgAVFLTq0.
> I don't think you've talked to an average person. They are quite upset.
I actually have, and essentially everyone, when pressed to give an actual, concrete example of how their life has been directly, negatively impacted by the previous admin fails to materialize one.
Instead it's all some BS fairytale narrative or outrage they have bought into through, e.g. youtube videos and podcasts hosted by people who have essential zero accreditation other than wealth, and that they continue to concoct in their nutrient impoverished brains, without evidence or reason.
Newsflash: the all-in podcast finance bros are not looking out for you or hoping you make it big time. They are literally angling to run pump and dump scams off the backs of their listeners (there is an episode in which they admit as much in relation to crypto) and continue to peddle anti labor perspectives in hopes that they can keep a grossly inequitable financial system that rewards investors and financiers more than actual producers and laborers afloat long enough to live like kings themselves—they don't give a flying fuck about you, me, or anyone else that listens to their crock. Wake up and begin to invest your time in perspectives that actually benefit you and your immediate community, don't let these clowns take you for a ride.
I actually have, and essentially everyone, when pressed to give an actual, concrete example of how their life has been directly, negatively impacted by the previous admin fails to materialize one.
Instead it's all some BS fairytale narrative or outrage they have bought into through, e.g. youtube videos and podcasts hosted by people who have essential zero accreditation other than wealth, and that they continue to concoct in their nutrient impoverished brains, without evidence or reason.
Newsflash: the all-in podcast finance bros are not looking out for you or hoping you make it big time. They are literally angling to run pump and dump scams off the backs of their listeners (there is an episode in which they admit as much in relation to crypto) and continue to peddle anti labor perspectives in hopes that they can keep a grossly inequitable financial system that rewards investors and financiers more than actual producers and laborers afloat long enough to live like kings themselves—they don't give a flying fuck about you, me, or anyone else that listens to their crock. Wake up and begin to invest your time in perspectives that actually benefit you and your immediate community, don't let these clowns take you for a ride.
Stop fixating on the finance bros. I gave you two links to two long form talks by the current Secretary of Treasury and Secratary of Commerce. Listen to them and draw your own conclusions, so atleast we know you are aware what the adminstration is trying to do, even if you disagree.
I don't have as much of a problem with businessmen getting involved in politics full-time as I have with career politicians - they can't execute, and they all seem to somehow get a whole lot richer. Republican or Democrat.
well, here is some evidence that average person is worse off:
"economic conditions for the bottom 50% improved more clearly and consistently during Trump's administration (2017–2020) compared to Biden’s tenure (2021–2025)."
6% vs 2%
https://chatgpt.com/share/67e786c3-82c0-8008-8ca4-3dae5d3a53...
"economic conditions for the bottom 50% improved more clearly and consistently during Trump's administration (2017–2020) compared to Biden’s tenure (2021–2025)."
6% vs 2%
https://chatgpt.com/share/67e786c3-82c0-8008-8ca4-3dae5d3a53...
On that last note, part of the plan with tariffs is already working: https://www.investing.com/news/politics-news/investment-comm...
> The SEC has its budget set by Congress, but the actual funding comes from transaction fees imposed on the financial sector, meaning its operations ultimately cost the taxpayer nothing
sounds like another 'budget-neutral' funding source for the bitcoin stockpile. moon
sounds like another 'budget-neutral' funding source for the bitcoin stockpile. moon
I can't wait for the Big Balls to do something at SEC that seriously affects SERIOUS money in the financial markets and see what kind of Big Guns come out at them from the Real Business. I am certain they won't know what hit them.
This theory has not yet worked out. Military-industrial complex? Folded like a cheap suit. Top-ranked universities? Same. Blue-chip law firms? Not sure, some capitulation, maybe some signs of life.
It'll be when the mess with the Scientologists. Those people don't play games, they'll sue DOGE, every person in the Trump Organization, their family members, and everyone in a five mile radius of them. All while they infiltrate them and steal all their files. Wouldn't be the first time[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
Interlaced within the DOGE troopers are guys lil swatters like Big Balls fear to reveal. Maybe not Scientology but certainly guys slotting into Deep State corner offices.
This group is being given insane levels of access to systems that can move world markets. Their names are public, and they're likely being targeted at all times by Mossad, GRU, MSS, and every other respectable intelligence agency who is doing its job. Since they're in their positions purely because Musk liked them they're likely wildly unqualified and know very little about opsec. So if they're not outright infiltrated it probably doesn't matter, all their devices are probably pwned several times over.
thats the thing, "Big Guns", and "SERIOUS money" are the ones pulling the strings to ensure that they make even more profit.
Yeah exactly. He is getting robbed and believes the robbers when they simply use the word “efficient”. His brain translates that to “in my interests”.
What any words mean don’t truly matter. Just what gets signaled to his brain. These people are effectively brainwashed. Or it isn’t a person, and is a bot. Who knows.
What any words mean don’t truly matter. Just what gets signaled to his brain. These people are effectively brainwashed. Or it isn’t a person, and is a bot. Who knows.
They’re really not. Instability is bad for growth. You make more money with hands in a thousand pots not one hand in a big one.
The big guns you see and hear about are complete amateurs.
The big guns you see and hear about are complete amateurs.
Yeah I suspect people might start falling off yachts soon. I’ve worked for people who have real money not just valuations and borrowing and you don’t fuck around there.
[deleted]
And yet Congress is letting this happen, this needs to stop. The dumb billionaires have no idea how the SEC keeps our stock markets stable.
I wonder when companies will start stock manipulations ?
I wonder when companies will start stock manipulations ?
They already are. People still don't see to understand that this is not to make government efficient. It is sabotage.
How do you make something that costs nothing more efficient?