There’s a Term for What Trump and Musk Are Doing
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Despite its name , the Department of Government Efficiency is not, so far, primarily interested in efficiency. DOGE and its boss, Elon Musk, have instead focused their activity on the eradication of the federal civil service, along with its culture and values, and its replacement with something different. In other words: regime change.
No one should be surprised or insulted by this phrase, because this is exactly what Trump and many who support him have long desired. During his 2024 campaign, Trump spoke of Election Day as “Liberation Day,” a moment when, in his words, “ vermin” and “radical left lunatics” would be eliminated from public life. J. D. Vance has said that Trump should “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.” Steve Bannon prefers to talk about the “deconstruction of the administrative state,” but that amounts to the same thing.
These ideas are not original to Vance or Bannon: In the 21st century, elected leaders such as Hugo Chávez or Viktor Orbán have also used their democratic mandates for the same purpose.. Chávez fired 19,000 employees of the state oil company; Orbán dismantled labor protections for the civil service. Trump, Musk, and Russell Vought, the newly appointed director of the Office of Management and Budget and architect of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—the original regime-change blueprint—are now using IT operations, captured payments systems, secretive engineers, a blizzard of executive orders, and viral propaganda to achieve the same thing.
This appears to be DOGE’s true purpose. Although Trump and Musk insist they are fighting fraud, they have not yet provided evidence for their sweeping claims . Although they demand transparency, Musk conceals his own conflicts of interest . Although they do say they want efficiency, Musk has made no attempt to professionally audit or even understand many of the programs being cut. Although they say they want to cut costs, the programs they are attacking represent a tiny fraction of the U.S. budget. The only thing these policies will certainly do, and are clearly designed to do, is alter the behavior and values of the civil service. Suddenly, and not accidentally, people who work for the American federal government are having the same experience as people who find themselves living under foreign occupation.
The destruction of the modern civil-service ethos will take time. It dates from the late 19th century, when Theodore Roosevelt and other civil-service reformers launched a crusade to eliminate the spoils system that dominated government service. At that time, whoever won the presidency always got to fire everyone and appoint his own people, even for menial jobs. Much of the world still relies on such patronage systems, and they are both corrupt and corrupting. Politicians hand out job appointments in exchange for bribes. They appoint unqualified people—somebody’s cousin, somebody’s neighbor, or just a party hack—to jobs that require knowledge and experience. Patronage creates bad government and bad services, because it means government employees serve a patron, not a country or its constitution. When that patron demands, say, a tax break fo r a businessman favored by the leader or the party, they naturally comply.
Until January 20 , American civil servants worked according to a different moral code. Federal workers were under instructions to respect the rule of law, venerate the Constitution, maintain political neutrality, and uphold lawful policy changes whether they come from Republican or Democratic administrations. They were supposed to measure objective reality—evidence of pollution, for example—and respond accordingly. Not all of them were good administrators or moral people, but the damage that any one of them could do was limited by audits, rules about transparency, and again, an ethos built around the rule of law. This system was accepted by everyone—Republican-voting FBI agents, Democratic-voting environmental officers, the nurses at veterans’ hospitals, the air-traffic controllers at LAX.
What precisely replaces the civil-service ethos remains unclear. Christian nationalists want a religious state to replace our secular one . Tech authoritarians want a dictatorship of engineers , led by a monarchical CEO. Musk and Trump might prefer an oligarchy that serves their business interests. Already, DOGE has attacked at least 11 federal agencies that were embroiled in regulatory fights with Musk’s companies or were investigating them for potential violations of laws on workplace safety, workers’ rights, and consumer protection.
The new system, whatever its ideology, will in practice represent a return to patronage, about which more in a minute. But before it can be imposed, the administration will first have to break the morale of the people who believed in the old civil-service ethos. Vought, at a 2023 planning meeting organized in preparation for this moment, promised exactly that. People who had previously viewed themselves as patriots, working for less money than they could make in the private sector, must be forced to understand that they are evil, enemies of the state. His statement has been cited before, but it cannot be quoted enough times: “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said at the time. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains … We want to put them in trauma.”
The email Musk sent to most employees in the federal government, offering them a “buyout”—several months’ pay, in exchange for a commitment to resign—was intended to inflict this kind of trauma. In effect, Musk was telling federal workers that he was not interested in what they were doing, or whether they were good at it, or how they could become more efficient. Instead, he was sending the message: You are all expendable .
Simultaneously, Musk launched an administrative and rhetorical attack on USAID, adding cruelty to the hostility. Many USAID employees work in difficult places, risking terrorism and violence, to distribute food and medicine to the poorest people on the planet. Overnight, they were told to abandon their projects and come home. In some places, the abrupt end of their programs, for example those providing special meals to malnourished children, will result in deaths, and USAID employees know it.
The administration has not acknowledged the dramatic real-world impact of this cut, which will, if not quashed by the courts, result in relatively minor budgetary savings. On the contrary, Musk and others turned to X to lie about USAID and its alleged waste. USAID did not give millions of dollars in direct grants to Politico , did not fund the visits of celebrities to Ukraine, did not send $50 million worth of condoms to Gaza, and did not pay $84 million to Chelsea Clinton . But these fictions and others have now been blasted to hundreds of millions of people. Information taken from grant databases is also being selectively circulated, in some cases fed to internet trolls who are now hounding grant recipients, in order to smear people and organizations that had legitimate, congressionally approved goals. Musk and others used a similar approach during the so-called Twitter Files scandal to discredit researchers and mischaracterize their work.
But the true significance of USAID’s destruction is the precedent it sets. Every employee of every U.S. department or agency now knows that the same playbook can be applied to them too: abrupt funding cuts and management changes, followed by smear campaigns. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which safeguards bank customers against unfair, deceptive, or predatory practices, is already suspended. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, which mostly manages student loans, may follow. Within other agencies, anyone who was involved in hiring, training, or improving workplaces for minority groups or women is at risk, as is anyone involved in mitigating climate change, in line with Trump’s executive orders.
In addition, Musk has personally taken it upon himself to destroy organizations built over decades to promote democracy and oppose Russian, Iranian, and Chinese influence around the world. For example, he described the journalists of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, who take extraordinary risks to report in Russia, Belarus, and in autocracies across Eurasia, as “radical left crazy people.” Not long after he posted this misleading screed on X, one RFE/RL journalist was released from a Belarusian prison after nearly three years in jail, as a part of the most recent prisoner exchange.
Putting them all together, the actions of Musk and DOGE have created moral dilemmas of a kind no American government employee has faced in recent history. Protest or collaborate? Speak up against lawbreaking or remain silent? A small number of people will choose heroism. In late January, a career civil servant, Nick Gottlieb, refused to obey an order to place several dozen senior USAID employees on administrative leave, on the grounds that the order violated the law. “The materials show no evidence that you engaged in misconduct,” he told them in an email. He also acknowledged that he, too, might soon be removed, as indeed he was. “I wish you all the best—you do not deserve this,” he concluded.
Others will decide to cooperate with the new regime—collaborating, in effect, with an illegal assault, but out of patriotism. Much like the Ukrainian scientists who have kept the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant going under Russian occupation because they fear catastrophe if they leave, some tech experts who work on America’s payment systems and databases have stayed in place even as Musk’s team of very young, very inexperienced engineers have demanded illegitimate access. “Going into these systems without an in-depth understanding of how they work both individually and interconnectedly is a recipe for disaster that will result in death and economic harm to our nation,” one government employee told my Atlantic colleagues Charlie Warzel and Ian Bogost .
Eventually, though, if the assault on the civil service is not blocked, the heroes and the patriots will disappear. They will be fired, or denied access to the tools they need to work, or frightened by the smear campaigns. They will be replaced by people who can pass the purity tests now required to get government jobs. Some will seem silly—are you willing to say “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico”?—and some will be deadly serious. Already, the Post reports , candidates for national-security posts in the new administration are being asked whether they accept Trump’s false claim to have won the 2020 election. At least two candidates for higher positions at the FBI were also asked to state who the “real patriots” were on January 6, 2021. This particular purity test is significant because it measures not just loyalty to Trump, but also whether federal employees are willing to repeat outright falsehoods—whether they are willing, in other words, to break the old civil-service ethos, which required people to make decisions based on objective realities, not myths or fictions.
To show that they are part of the new system, many loyalists will also engage in loud, performative behavior, designed to attract the attention and approval of Trump, Musk, Vought, or their followers. Ed Martin, the Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., wrote a missive addressed to “Steve and Elon” (referring to Musk and his associate Steve Davis) in which he vowed to track down “individuals and networks who appear to be stealing government property and/or threatening government employees.” If anyone is deemed to have broken the law “or acted simply unethically,” Martin theatrically promised to “chase them to the end of the Earth.” Ostentatious announcements of bans on supposed DEI or climate-change projects will similarly threaten civil servants. Late last month, the Air Force removed videos about the Tuskegee Airmen and the Women’s Airforce Service Pilots, the first Black and female Air Force pilots, from a training course. After an uproar, the videos were put back , but the initial instinct was revealing. Like the people asking FBI candidates to lie about what happened on January 6, someone at the Air Force felt obliged to deny older historical truths as well.
Eventually, demonstrations of loyalty might need to become more direct. The political scientist Francis Fukuyama points out that a future IRS head, for example, might be pressured to audit some of the president’s perceived enemies. If inflation returns, government employees might feel they need to disguise this too. In the new system, they would hold their job solely at the pleasure of the president, not on behalf of the American people, so maybe it won’t be in their interest to give him any bad news.
Many older civil servants will remain in the system, of course, but the new regime will suspect them of disloyalty. Already, the Office of Personnel Management has instructed federal employees to report on colleagues who are trying to “disguise” DEI programs, and threatened “adverse consequences” for anyone who failed to do so. The Defense Health Agency sent out a similar memo. NASA, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the FBI have also told employees who are aware of “coded or imprecise language” being used to “disguise” DEI to report these violations within 10 days.
Because these memos are themselves coded and imprecise, some federal employees will certainly be tempted to abuse them. Don’t like your old boss? Report him or her for “disguising DEI.” Want to win some brownie points with the new boss? Send in damning evidence about your colleagues’ private conversations. In some government departments, minority employees have set up affinity groups, purely voluntary forums for conversation or social events. A number of government agencies are shutting these down; others are being disbanded by organizers who fear that membership lists will be used to target people. Even private meetings, outside the office, might not be safe from spying or snooping colleagues.
That might sound implausible or incredible, but at the state level, legislation encouraging Americans to inform on other Americans has proliferated. A Texas law, known as the Heartbeat Act, allows private citizens to sue anyone they believe to have helped “aid or abet” an abortion. The Mississippi legislature recently debated a proposal to pay bounties to people who identify illegal aliens for deportation. These measures are precedents for what’s happening now to federal employees.
And the fate of federal employees will, in turn, serve as a precedent for what will happen to other institutions, starting with universities. Random funding cuts have already shocked some of the biggest research universities across the country, damaging ongoing projects without regard to “efficiency” or any other criteria. Political pressure will follow. Already, zealous new employees at the National Science Foundation are combing through descriptions of existing research projects, looking to see if they violate executive orders banning DEI. Words such as advocacy , disability , trauma , socioeconomic , and yes, women will all trigger reviews.
There are still greater dangers down the road—the possible politicization of the Federal Electoral Commission, for example. Eventually, anyone who interacts with the federal government—private companies, philanthropies, churches, and above all, citizens—might find that the cultural revolution affects them too. If the federal government is no longer run by civil servants fulfilling laws passed by Congress, then its interests might seriously diverge from yours.
None of this is inevitable. Much of it will be unpopular. The old idea that public servants should serve all Americans, and not just a small elite, has been part of American culture for more than a century. Rule of law matters to many of our elected politicians, as well as to their voters, all across the political spectrum. There is still time to block this regime change, to preserve the old values. But first we need to be clear about what is happening, and why.
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
One gets the feeling America's Civil War never came to an end.
Right now it's less Gettysburg and more Orwell.
I had family members fight each other and die at gettysburg. civil wars can be especially cruel. I'm ready ...
Couldn't agree more! This article couldn't have been written more obviously to have come from the "Ministry of Truth".
Which truth? I can still remember when true journalists were respected in this country. Blatant lies now pass as truth and journalistic integrity is skewing more and more towards the Trumpist Party line.
It is a pity that so many people are bamboozled by this arrogant, lying, and morally corrupt person that he is now "the Leader of the (once) free world"....
I think it is more accurate to say that opinion passes as truth. That's been the case for many years. It has worsened as the fight for clicks has intensified. We've even coined the phrase "my truth" to replace "my opinion".
Somewhat, but to what extent is a matter of perspective.
Several once impartial national media sources had become obviously left leaning over the years, and some of those are attempting to move back to a more neutral position. A person who has formed an opinion about places like CNN or the Washington Post based primarily on the last 10-15 years might believe they are moving toward "Trumpism" without realizing they're really just moving back to the centrist positions they held 40 years ago.
Exactly.
I can still remember when there were true journalists.
Well, I've been saying for years that the media can't be trusted anymore.
LOL. So what gulag are you writing from? I'm assuming that, since the world is no longer free, you got this out by scribbling a note on toilet paper with the stub of a two-inch pencil and you bribed a guard to post this for you. You know, not being free and all. Pretty amazing, really, that your post is even up, since it seems to have slipped past the government censors. Good on you.
There are still true journalists who tell the whole truth, not just the convenient parts. Reportage to buttress a point of view is opinion at best, propaganda if more severe. People lie all the time, using facts to make it appear they are telling the truth. This is the genesis of the line "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Con men and women will try to deceive by telling spurious tales with smatterings of so called facts, until they have achieved their goal, then it does not matter anymore. At that point they can just spew at will. In my opinion, this is the point that Trump and his minions feel they have reached. The minions thought that they had arrived at that point after the first debate and they started crowing a little too soon about Project 2025. Trump was able to add (im)plausible deniability to this. Have you seen the cabinet picks? And yet they are approved by a cowed Senate, afraid to anger their Dear Leader, or worse, complicit in his deceit.
Some media is still truthful, it is just knowing who is full of shit or not that is the beginning of the solution. It should be our desire to be savvy enough to know when somebody is trying to pull our collective leg, and at the same time accepting of facts when presented.
I was appreciative of imaginative humor, until I had to scribe with a stick on my rectum a note about the atrocities committed in the camps. My plan really wasn't that well thought out, but it kept me occupied until they came for me. In this incarnation, I am trying to do better with the knowledge that I have gained, so that the people might not have to echo history again and again. I guess that I will have to try even harder to convince them next time. This time they appear to have already crossed the line.
Maybe you should ask the author seeing as she has won 3 publisher's prizes for 'Gulag: A History'.
... of course not, we allowed members of the treasonous confederacy and their support structure to live ...
Oh, c'mon! Don't you think that's a bit harsh on Democrats???
That's why there are so many dumbass leftists in the country now.
Thanks, Lincoln
But there are more "dumbass" Trumpist's, according to you.
Well, a good way to tell if the Democrats of today are mostly descended from the racist Southern Democrats of the confederacy is to see who today is flying their ancestors' flags and who is fighting hard to protect their ancestors confederate monuments and demanding the military to bring back confederate slave owners to name our military bases after. I mean the only people who would do such things would have to be those who either descend from those racist confederate Southern Democrats or at minimum share the same ideology.
I find it a lot easier to just accept the reality that the racist Southern Democrats have all fled to hide among the Republican party which, as anyone with more than half a brain know, was a calculated strategy employed by Republicans after the Democrats authored, passed and then signed into law the civil rights act and voting rights act.
And considering who has taken up the confederate mantle and have largely kept whites in power in Southern States over the last several decades, it's clear to see today which party has both the genealogical connection and ideological connection. Southern Democrats were the party of white rightwing conservative Christians back in the early decades of the last century, but times have changed and the Southern Democrat party doesn't even exist anymore. It's last vestiges were absorbed into the Republican party in the late 1960's and early 1970's and then snowballed from there over the next 30 years to where the South was completely taken over by the Republican party in the late 1990's. All those racist white Southern Democrats didn't move, they didn't all die off, their ancestors didn't just sell and leave the State, they stayed and just switched party affiliation which was much simpler to do than ripping up their roots and moving out of the South.
I know this will fall on deaf ears because those who don't want to accept these facts will shut their eyes and plug their ears or attack the messenger and attack Wiki, but you'll notice none of them can actually refute the facts.
Saying that Democrats are the real racists because 100 or 150 years ago the racists were more in the Democratic Party is an easy and lazy way to describe the evolution of racism in America. The better way to look at it and the more accurate way to look at it is that the slaveholders and racists were conservatives. There was a time when the Democratic Party was more conservative than the Republican Party but that day has been gone for many years now and the roles are essentially reversed. This isn't that complicated but being honest about it doesn't serve the purposes of the right these days.
Democrats are the real racists because their racial obsessions lead them to believe race defines a person and to support the government discriminating on the basis of race, just like southern Democrats did in 1850.
Nice try but anyone with more than half a brain can see right through that wildly flawed argument.
Southern Democrats if the first half of the last century considered themselves rightwing conservative Christians and supported Jim Crow laws, segregation and what amounted to white affirmative action.
When the Northern Democrats took control of the Democratic party and pushed through the civil rights act and voting rights act over the objections of the Southern Democrats, many of the Southern Democrats felt abandoned by the Democratic party. That's when the Republican party actually employed the Southern strategy which was an attempt to appeal to the disaffected white voters who were angry at their party passing the civil rights and voting rights act.
And since then, the Democratic party fought for more access for minorities including supporting black affirmative action in colleges and the workplace which was in direct conflict with the white affirmative action that had been active in our country for almost 200 years.
Now we have white rightwing conservatives who are still fighting against black affirmative action, and they call themselves Republicans. If they can't have their longed-for white affirmative action, then nobody should get any preferential treatment! And sure, the fact that white conservatives got almost 200 years of white affirmative action before it was banned; to give black Americans even a few years of affirmative action is just unforgiveable and SUPER racist, oh and it's also racist to even mention the 200 years of white affirmative action because that could be seen as discriminating against white people and that's something we just can't ever allow. /s
f
ce try but anyone with more than half a brain can see right through that wildly flawed argument
Yet all you did was prove me correct by trying to justify racial discrimination.
outhern Democrats if the first half of the last century considered themselves rightwing conservative Christians and supported Jim Crow laws
Sadly, your made up history is even more preposterous.
Imagine making that argument with the overwhelming support among racist white southerners for the ultra progressive FDR staring you in the face.
. That's when the Republican party actually employed the Southern strategy which was an attempt to appeal to the disaffected white voters who were angry at their party passing the civil rights and voting rights act.
and here's the holy gospel of progressive religion. It ignores everything but a memo from a campaign staffer. Eisenhower, the guy who integrated schools at gun point and passed civil rights bills won the popular vote in the south. Nixon almost won it in 1960. Nixon, the supposed candidate of white supremacy, supported both the civil rights bills and voting right act.
Many progressives, unfortunately, view the world through the prism of race and assume others do too. These race essentialists are too close minded to deal with reality. As the south became more prosperous, it became more republican. The more prosperous the area (urban areas, suburbs and the peripheral south) the quicker it became republican. The deepest, most racist parts of the south remained Democratic the longest. Anyone with access to a map and voting totals can see that.
The Vietnam War (ever heard of it?) elected Nixon and Acid, amnesty and abortion won Nixon a southern landslide.
Wrong. Roosevelt had an unwritten understanding with the racist southern Democrats that he would not push for civil rights in the south if they supported the rest of his 'progressive' agenda.
Let's go back to high school US history for a moment.
SO they voted progressive and ran as progressives but weren't really progressive because they were secret conservatives who had to protect Jim Crow laws from Republicans? That's your argument?
Yes, the progressives in the south supported the new deal but wanted Jim Crow. No kidding.
I just finished a biography of George H.W. Bush which provides an actual example of how the south turned Republican. Bush ran for Congress in 1966 against an arch segregationist racist Democrat who attacked him for supporting a "negroe softball team for girls" and things of that nature. Bush attacked him as a vote for the liberal speaker of the House.
Bush, the racial moderate, won flipping a Democratic seat to Republican.
You did not have a viable point about the southern Democrats and Roosevelt.
They were racist segregationists who were willing to make a deal.
A deal for what? The Republican party wasn't even allowed on the ballot in areas. Progressive democrats in the south voted and campaigned for progressive things, like the New Deal. They were also racist supporters of Jim Crow.
Hell, a generation later a significant number of signers of the southern manifesto still in Congress voted for LBJ's great society, arguably the most progressive economic legislation in American history.
they were racist thumpers that deserved mini-balls back then, so zero loss to america ...
History books say FDR and the conservative southern Democrats accommodated each other, but I guess you know better
Accommodated meaning praised each other and worked to enact the progressive legislation they supported.
Cartoonish racists like Theodore Bilbo were more than happy to campaign "on being 100% for Roosevelt and the New Deal."
Here's the Progressive holy man Ta-naeshi Coates admitting the obvious about progressives:
Progressives who deny their own history are just engaging in stalinesque tactics of rewriting it to just call anyone they they think is a bad guy a "conservative." It's shallow, juvenile and utterly transparent.
Happy Constitutional Crisis MAGA!
It only took three weeks to completely trash what was left of the international reputation of the United States of America.
Broken treaties? You haven't seen anything yet.
Let's sabre rattle our closest allies in Canada, Mexico and Panama.
Let's threaten the European Union, Denmark and Greenland.
Broken contracts and grants between The Feds and every state, unknown numbers of NGOs and farmers across the continent.
Smiling, smirking ass hats talking about efficiencies being achieved at the expense of civil servants and contractors.
The US Attorney Of Southern NY kneecapped by a new DOJ directive to drop the case against a dirty NY Mayor
in exchange for leverage to force said mayor to give up all immigrants.
Now Nato, again. Just withdraw for the world's sake. Hegsbeth already said no to Ukraine and no to Article 5.
We're done. We are the worst allies possible unless we allign with Putin to carve up Ukraine now, the Baltics next.
Gaza? A joke?
Elections have consequences.
We are now going to be led by white nationalist racist homophobes who literally say what they think out loud no matter how insane or against the Constitution or rule of law it is.
Even the worm brain damaged new head of HHS, the Snowden loving new NatSecuritySec or the lying new AG will play word games to do the opposite of what they uttered at their confirmation hearings. Do we expect any less?
Like our VP declaring that judges, literally the third leg of the stool that represents our three equal branches of government,
have no power over the White House or the PoTUS.
The federal workers who survive will be dealing with scrubbing DEI, Wokeness and presumably equality from the Federal work place, replacing the word Gender with the word Sex ( this week's EO ) in all federal documents and contracts, in between the myriad of law suits from half of the states and all effected contractors.
Backlogs of immigration claims for asylum, canceled; no more need for additional judges or staff, lay them off too. Efficiency.
Backlogs of FEMA claims? Declare them closed, FEMA was there to give you your pittance, now you're on your own.
American exceptionalism in action. The resilience of family
FEMA claims for California with all of it's illegal population? Cut it loose. Change the flag to 49 stars until such a time when
Greenland, Gaza, Panama or some other wet dream qualifies for statehood.
Too much?
Can't make this shit up fast enough before Trump does.
This week the White House directed the NCAA to strip the 10 known trans winners in women's sports and hold a ceremony awarding the "medals" to the appropriate women over the past years.
Likewise, Orbans Hungarian news and Putin's Russian news sources accused a former defense contractor of social deception prompting Trump to demand the company refund the government $9 billion for services rendered from Trump's first term in 2018 through 2022 for social media firewalling and hunting for hackers, bad actors and malware.
It appears that the only reason for Trump's ire is that the name of the company is Thompson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters News.
Why is that a bad thing?
Rewriting history is rarely to anyone's benefit.
Trump said he would do this shit. He was elected in order to do this shit. So why does anyone find it surprising that he is doing this shit.
Does this mean that the American people are incredibly stupid? Kinda looks like it, hmmm?
He also promised $1 a gallon gasoline and cheaper food.
Now we have to wait for the tariffs to do "their job"
Only ⅓ of the electorate voted for Trump.
We need to remember that a tyrant can be elected PotUS by a mere fraction of the electorate.
At the least one would hope this gets people to realize how important it is to get out and vote.
It would have not taken much (percentage wise) of those who did not vote for Harris or Trump to have prevented this irresponsible buffoon from gaining the power of the presidency.
And especially in swing states.
All that you say is true.
It is also true that the American electoral system put Trump in the White House.
If people want democracy, they must care for it. Not enough Americans cared.
If oil went so low gas dropped to $1 a gallon for very long pretty much every American oil and gas producer would go bankrupt...
"Drill Baby Drill"...
And not enough understand what Trump is.
Unfortunately, many will find out once the damage is done. Hopefully it registers before the midterms since clearly the GOP is rubber-stamping Trump's decisions and thus defeat a critical check in the CotUS.
Right? I mean, you hear the whole "death of democracy" crap from the Left but when democracy puts someone like Trump in place, it somehow makes democracy disappear. It's now a "dictatorship". Apparently, what they mean by "democracy" is something they approve of, not an actual democracy. In other words, "democracy is when everyone else does what I want them to do".
Righting wrongs usually is.
It would not have taken much for the Democratic Party to offer a candidate who was widely recognized as a better alternative.
I agree, if Biden had not run or if he had dropped out sooner.
But I find no excuse for voting for Trump over any intelligent, decent human being who would view the presidency as a solemn duty rather than a personal tool for self-aggrandization.
Not recognizing that Trump is unfit for office is inexcusable in my book.
Every democracy in history has eventually died the same way: unworthy elected officials. "One man, one vote... one time". Trump has said we won't have to vote again. I believe him.
This view is almost completely divorced from reality. You, JR and most of the people in your camp think that Trump himself was the issue, and you ran with that. Just like the Dem party. You lost because you don't seem to understand that issues, not the person, was what most cared about. You tried to sell everyone on the idea that it didn't matter who the Dems put up for president, Trump was so bad that it didn't matter. Hence, Biden. A candidate so bad that a windblown plastic bag from a grocery store in an abandoned lot would have done better. Then, to make matters worse, they put forth Harris in about the most undemocratic manner possible and had the qualifications of an Elvis bobblehead.
Even after the evidence of Trump's election slaps you in the face, you can't or won't recognize this. Regardless of who Trump is, he was elected as President in reaction to the extremism of the Left. People don't love Trump because he's Trump. They love him because of what he's doing. They don't love him because he's got some politically correct filter governing what he says, they love him because he says, unfiltered, what they themselves are thinking, whereas any Dem candidate is seen as someone they're told is smarter than they are and so they should just shut up and do what they're told.
Again, people love Trump because of what he's trying to do. They feel like they're getting VIP access to Area 51. He and Musk are seen as trying to let everyone see the man behind the curtain and, honestly, what isn't there to love about that? I am genuinely surprised that he hasn't been assassinated by our own government yet. I really think that if a poll were taken, it would find that most people expect it's coming.
So, in the end, your attempt to shame people for supporting Trump only resonates with those who already think as you do. For those who support Trump, their concerns are completely different from yours. They only care about what he's doing, not who he is. How do you not see that?
Donald Trump, likely the most un Christian person in politics, put his name on the cover of a Bible and then sold it to the masses for two or three times what it was worth. Then he put out a new "edition" with the date of his assassination attempt embossed on the cover, strongly implying a connection between the word of God and him escaping death as he campaigned for president. Stop trying to claim you are a Christian when you support someone who is willing to starve babies.
Your argument, feeble as it is , is that the people voted for Trump. It doesn't matter if he got every single vote, he would still be the most horrible person this nation has ever elevated to high office.
Why would anyone be required to agree that Trump won a mandate? He got less than 50% of the vote, and his electoral college total is not indicative of a "landslide". Anyone claiming otherwise is lying.
Here is the fucking moron you support in action today
Trump Entertains Insane Question About USAID Rigging the 2020 Election: ‘They Probably Tried’
This should be good.
No, the electorate is the issue. And you can easily see that both JR and I note that fact. The electorate is supposed to put quality (at least marginally) individuals into office; at the very least, individuals who are fit for the office. And certainly not a traitor who tried to steal the 2020 presidential election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. Trump is unfit for office. The electorate did not recognize that. Or, I should say, at least ⅓ of the electorate did not recognize that. ⅓ voted for Trump, ⅓ voted for Harris, and the super super majority of the balance did not even bother to vote.
You are in fantasyland, weaving your own alternate reality. How utterly dishonest!
What I did was state that Trump is unfit and that Harris was the only realistic choice. I thought Biden was too old in 2020 so guess my position when he decided to run again. I noted that this was a big mistake and that now we are stuck with two bad choices again. My choice was initially Chris Sununu but when he dropped out of the GOP primary, I supported Nikki Haley (financially even). (I am greatly disappointed by both of them.) When Trump won the nomination we were stuck again with shit choices, but between those two, one was entirely unfit so I planned to vote for Biden as the best way to use my vote against Trump. When Biden dropped out, I was pleased. Harris is intelligent, decent human being, experienced, competent, and would treat the office as a solemn duty rather than use it as a tool for self-aggrandization (Trump). I voted for Harris (unlike Biden, I did support her) and against Trump.
In short, you have no clue about my position. You just invented a little story that is both false and demonstrably so by my collective comments.
There is no slap, I saw this coming a long time ago. But I will say that Trump is worse than I had imagined. And I expect things to worsen still.
What they believe he is doing. Prices are not coming down, Drakk. Lives are not going to improve. What Trump is doing right now is perfect to spike inflation and interest rates. Apparently you do not see this. What he is actually doing will unfortunately deliver pain to all of us and one can only hope that at least Trump supporters will get a clue at that point.
Trump is going to have some successes and I will note those as well as his many failures. One success I hope he will have is to end the Ukraine war without throwing Ukraine under the bus. I doubt this ends well for Ukraine, but there is a hope. Trump could do good here. But his tariff confusion is damaging us economically and diplomatically. His narcissistic stubbornness and stupidity are dangerous. This is like a child driving a car, giving him the keys was irresponsible, irrational, and unpatriotic.
That is delusional ... at least profoundly naive. If you actually think Trump and Musk are acting to help the American people —and are providing transparency of their intent— then you will be one of the individuals who will eventually (hopefully) wake-up and realize that both Trump and Musk consider themselves aristocracy and everyone else (and that includes you) are resources for them. To not see this just by watching these two behave prior to the election and now when they have power is highly disappointing.
The amazing thing is that you, et. al. actually believe that Trump is working for your best interests. It is sad and maddening because it is that kind of thinking that has caused this nation to be stuck with this asshole for four years.
Wow! Way to show you understood nothing about what I said. Trump, the person, is only an issue for you and those like you. What Trump is doing is what matters to those who support him. That means they don't care if he walks around naked all day. Maybe if he drowned puppies on live TV but, other than that, it's his actions they care about, not him.
Probably you're going to bring up something like him being a liar. By this point, people know how to translate what he says, which I think they think of more as exaggerations rather than lies. For instance, he apparently said he would abolish taxes on overtime or some such. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows he can't do that. It would take an act of Congress. So, people see it as intent rather than promise. Those with at least two brain cells, anyway.
I will explain how I view this comment. An asteroid the size of Io is seconds from crashing into the earth. The building we're standing in is not only on fire, it's collapsing. Demons from the 113th circle of Hell is erupting from a portal just feet away from us. Perhaps worst of all, McDonalds put pickles on your cheeseburger when you emphatically said to leave them off. I'm trying to escape all of this but I can't because you've grabbed me by the lapels and screaming in my face about some dude you don't like.
Do you support gratuitous tariffs and a trade war when a key priority was to lower prices and interest rates (and keep the balance of the economy good)?
No. You completely ignored his point because you find it inconvenient.
If people are willing to overlook Trump's personal flaws, then your incessant dithering about them is meaningless neurosis.
Well, they are and it is.
And as much as you like to whine about Trump representing the end of democracy, he just doesn't. Our system has survived worse, it will survive him. Again.
The real question lies in Drakk's point: Will the batshit left realize that their ideas are so ridiculous and reprehensible that the American people would rather have a known liar, cheat, shithead Yankee real estate developer as president than have to put up with their silly asses for one more day?
I see no evidence to suggest they have learned a single thing.
Who told you that? I mean, who told you that the Presidency is supposed to be something like a popularity pageant? Can you really not see how ridiculous your argument is? You're advocating image, not action! The stupidest phrase I've ever heard concerning the presidency is " He's/He's not presidential ". What the actual F...? What does that even mean and who the hell decides it? If Trump is standing there with a bucket of water and there's a fire, I don't give a damned about his personality. I don't care if he lies about the water being the tears or a celestial virgin from an alternate reality. I only care if he intends to put out the fire.
I would say you're the one being dishonest, but I don't believe you understand the reality you're trying to portray. That is, I think you actually believe what you're saying, so you're not being intentionally dishonest. Too bad for me that I don't get the same courtesy.
Yes, you did. Everything after this was sophistry, except...
You don't seem to understand what this means for a great many people. Given that the choices were between the shiniest of two turds, you feel it should be a personality contest. You apparently cannot grasp that, for many, meaning most of those who elected Trump, it wasn't personality as much as it was about issues. They like Trump because of what he says and what he claims he will do. And, so far, he's keeping his promises. If you cannot see that this is what people love most about him then you're in denial.
This would be wrong. That is, I was not persuaded that Trump would be able to do any of this by his own authority. While I'm sure there is a portion of his supporters that think Trump could just wave his hand and the price of eggs would reset (bell curve is a real thing), I think most understood it for what it was. Intent.
I understood years ago that what Trump is attempting will hurt, personally. Maybe a lot. But that doesn't mean it's bad.
Me, too. Unfortunately, I can't see how he can do it without supporting Ukraine's total victory and I don't see him doing that.
Whatever. As I've been trying to point out, you're concerned with motive. I think Trump and Musk's motive are mostly positive but, even if they aren't, it doesn't matter to me. I only care that if corruption in the government is exposed, we know it.
By now you must know I'm a cynic, so, how can you say this? How many times have I said that the baseline of human nature is corruption? Yet you post this nonsense?
I said no such thing. Not even close.
Do you not understand that the same can be said of those who supported Biden, Harris or Obama? Why do you suppose that is? Answer: they have different priorities and values than you do. You call it ignorance because they don't think the way you do, but that's the sort of thing that causes people to vote for Trump.
I think you're wrong. Well, mostly. What causes democracies to fail has less to do with their leaders, which can be seen as merely a symptom of the actual problem, and more to do with the people. To oversimplify, democracies usually go something like this:
Some condition that causes the people to rebel against something. A period where they work towards some goal. Achievement of goal on some level. Subsequent generations who have no concept of the blood paid act hedonistically, taking advantage of what their predecessors accomplished (money for nothing). Democracy collapses due to hedonistic abandonment of the foundations of said democracy's values.
First, don't load your question with your biases. Hint: Gratuitous. That's called a "leading question" meant to illicit a desired response.
Second, I don't really have an opinion on this subject, as I don't know enough about the mechanics of tariffs to have one.
And less than that voted for your side.
Your point?
No he didn't.
That so many on the left claim seem to think certainly bears on your point on the American people being incredibly stupid though, doesn't it?
And here you go again creating complete nonsense and pretending this is what I have indicated.
Absolute BULLSHIT. I am constantly talking about what Trump does. There is no way that you could have missed that but yet you invent this utter nonsense about image being the only factor.
Yet again, you invent your own reality. You either have no clue about my position or are intentionally lying. I think it is the latter.
Yeah, Drakk. You compare Trump to Harris and think that she is NOT an intelligent, decent human being, experienced, competent, and would treat the office as a solemn duty? Get a clue.
What then was the intent these other's presumed? What was Trump going to do? You know what his answer was? It was tariffs and "drill,baby,drill". He was going to lower prices by lowering the price of energy by increasing domestic oil production. Do you buy that? Because if you do, you truly do not understand the oil market, production rates, refinery infrastructure and the reason why we continue to import a substantial amount of crude oil. "Drill, baby, drill" is not going to happen because it is not cost-effective for domestic energy companies.
Now that is some fancy justification on a vague notion. Which policy are you referring to? After all, if you do not have something in mind, you are just babbling and granting some blanket 'it might not be bad' bullshit.
It should matter to you. Musk will expose bad things in government; almost impossible to not find a ton of this. But you not caring what Trump and Musk (individually) are mostly concerned about is the kind of apathy that allows people like Trump and Musk to be in control.
Because you contradict yourself! Hell, Drakk, you just did: "I think Trump and Musk's motive are mostly positive...". You claim to be a cynic and then post this naive belief?
Again, you just said: "I think Trump and Musk's motive are mostly positive...". Plus this whole post is you defending Trump. Good grief man.
And if you do not think Trump is working for your best interests then why are you defending him?
What you do not recognize is how profoundly bad Trump is compared to any other PotUS in our lifetimes. Can you imagine any other PotUS gratuitously and publicly threatening our closest trading partners with outrageous tariffs without even having a private discussion with them? What value is it to publicly humiliate Mexico and Canada ... our closest allies and trading partners? Who would do that other than Trump? Do you think any other PotUS would threaten to take back the Panama canal: 'take'? What other PotUS would continually tell the world that tariffs are his method of making the USA fiscally sound? Truly, Drakk, how utterly obtuse must one be to not understand that tariffs are paid by domestic companies and passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices? The fact that Trump not only spoke this utter nonsense for months on the campaign trail, he is actually imposing tariffs. And what will that do to domestic prices? What will that do to future trade relationships as partners naturally and sensibly make moves to reduce their dependence on the USA since we have proved that we will actually elect a tyrant to the presidency? What other PotUS would fire DoJ employees because they were assigned and worked on his criminal cases? Or fire inspector generals. Or nominate a proven incompetent dolt (twice-failed minor executive) like Hegseth to lead the DoD? Or simply declare that jus soli, guaranteed by the CotUS, is no longer a constitutional right? Or engage in mass deportation which, if possible (and it is not), would hurt our economy since most of the individuals are doing jobs that the average American does not want to do. What PotUS would spend his time making fun of his enemies and trolling talk show hosts? What PotUS would pointlessly rename an international body of water ... obviously with no authority to do so except for USA references? What PotUS would announce that the USA is going to simply take Gaza, rebuild it, deport its population, and produce a Riviera of the Middle East? What PotUS would claim that he can stop a war with a phone call, or cut energy prices by 50%?
And what PotUS would even think of trying to steal a US presidential election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement? Would throw his own VP under the bus during an insurrection of the US capitol that he incited. Would so violate his oath of office and disenfranchise the electorate? Would for years insist against overwhelming proof that he actually won the 2020 election?
And then we can get to character, ethics, morality, demeanor, etc. Trump did not just suddenly become a pathological lying, malignant narcissist, loose-cannon, arrogant asshole. That is who he is. He is a demagogue who clearly is not interested in treating the presidency as a solemn duty to do what is best for the American people but rather as a tool for self-aggrandization.
Unlike every other PotUS in our lifetimes, the electorate has done the equivalent of giving a stubborn, rowdy child the keys to the car.
I could look past all of Trump's many negatives if his actions did not reflect them.
If Trump were to focus on responsible measures such as organizing responsible AI, carefully deporting only criminal migrants, properly (sensibly) securing our borders, creating a realistic sovereign wealth fund, sensibly identifying true waste and corruption and eliminating same, focus on measures that will NOT spike inflation, NOT spike interest rates, NOT spike unemployment, etc., focus on fiscal discipline without harming the Average citizen, focus on genuine trade issues (e.g. suffering industry needing a temporary boost) and imposing well crafted tariffs if necessary, bringing peace to the Middle East, fairly ending (negotiating) the Ukraine war, etc. I would overlook his many negative qualities.
But as it stands, his many negative qualities, and his history, are quite strong indicators of the kind of actions he will take as PotUS and this is not good news.
Finally, Drakk, I and others are quite aware that Trump supporters voted for him in spite of his personal negatives. That they believe his policies will be good. So stop with this bullshit presumption that people who oppose Trump are stupid. My opposition to Trump is based on what he has done, is doing, and likely will do. His abysmal character is simply a good indicator of his motives and what he is likely to do.
You, et. al., claim to support Trump in spite of his personal negative and history yet you seem to have no recognition of the bad things that he is doing. Top of the list is his brain-dead tariffs and the public, threatening manner in which he engages them. Maybe you, et.al. will realize the problems with Trump at the helm when you see that prices have gone the opposite of what Trump promised. Somehow, though, I doubt it.
When you get 50 percent of the vote or less, like Trump did you have no mandate to disassemble the government. [✘] Even in terms of his policies there seems to be a roughly even split. You seem to think he can be the biggest jagoff on earth as long as he got 49.7% of the vote. Presidents are not remembered mainly for the policies, which come and go, (although they do usually reflect some level of progress not regression) but are remembered and described by their character. Have you ever read any presidential biographies. Trump isn't going to be rated the worst president in history by historians because of this or that policy, but because he is immoral, cruel, petty, erratic, dangerously mentally ill, and a buffoon. If you want to praise that and be on the side of that, go for it.
Um, it's in what you said. Trump entertains insane question. so.... Play a stupid game, win a stupid prize.
Utter fucking crap. I am through trying to be diplomatic about or soft sell this. There are many many millions of people who believe every word Trump says and think he has never told them a lie in the past 10 years.
YESTERDAY, when asked if USAID had rigged the 2020 election he said "it could have". Today there will be millions of people thinking the humanitarian arm of the US government, that feeds starving people in "shithole" countries, tried to harm their god, and the claim will be spread across the moron sections of social media.
This sort of thing is not an occasional happening , it is every day or close to it, and it has done severe damage to the way Americans think about their country.
You are hopeless. The question was asked by a "reporter" from a far right "news" outlet because Trump wanted it there. He wants chances to say the election was stolen from him, even better if he can say it was stolen by someone or something he is trying to get rid of, like a humanitarian group.
OMG! The comedy factor of you asking this question can't be overestimated! I think I'm in danger of medical dehydration due to the laughter tears!!![✘]
Bla bla bla. People like you are enabling him every day.
What would Jesus do?
Sheer irony since it has been around for the last ten years and we have endured the Biden administration's bullshit as well as non-stop Trump bashing and trying to discredit his Presidency right here in NT city.
You really needn't bother. People are perfectly capable of reading between the lines. We know what you mean regardless of how you word it.
I already answered this question when you asked it in another seed. Don't you remember? Do you think my answer would be different?
Believe it or not I don't read all your comments
Of course people bash and discredit Trump. He is not mentally psychologically or ethically fit to be president of the United States
And yet there he sits in the Oval Office....................
Which was more than enough for a mandate to toss the progressive traitors out.
And most of them are from the left. You all hang on every word he says.
He's not wrong. USAID has been sending money to organizations that are not remotely close to anything "humanitarian". Then those organizations make donations to Democrats. I think that's called "kickbacks".
That's one opinion. Not necessarily true or even based on any fact.
Was clear. In fact, I believe most everyone reading it had no problem understanding my point.
Not a bit true. And you and others reflexively go name calling, emotional labeling, and exaggeration about Trump.
Jimmy Carter was a good person, but a terrible president.
Ronald Reagen was also a good person, and an excellent president.
Can you even imagine Ronald Reagan doing what Trump is doing?
You get the drift.
Reagan would be disgusted to see who his beloved nation elected as PotUS.
You continue to live in denial that the American people would rather have 4 more years of "the biggest jagoff on earth" than four more years of looney lefty bullshit.
And here you go again with this childish nonsense. Anybody who fails to pass your religious purity test and wholly validate your insane hysteria is "supporting Trump". As completely ridiculous as that is, it isn't the dumbest line of rhetoric you and others like you attempt to sell.
Then what's the point of trying to answer your question?
Get up. Heal a couple paralytics. Tell a parable or two. Have lunch. Maybe cast out a demon. Forgive some sins. Chill with the disciples.
Basically get on with His day.
I am not in the habit of taking a negative tack on what politicians say, or let my imagination run wild about what they might do or play "what if" scenarios. Trump is well known for being blunt in his statements and is way ahead of his detractors when it comes to policies and the Republican agenda. Less than a month in.....let's see how things look three years down the road. I don't care for methods, only about long-term results.
I agree with about every cabinet choice and action he has taken. I would feel the same if Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley had become president and doing and saying the same things. You seem to have a habit of attempting to shame and mock people for their valid and informed opinions. It doesn't work....and weakens your arguments.
I typically ask you probative questions. Almost certainly you will not respond or respond as you have done by saying nothing.
The answer is obvious.
Reagan would NEVER:
You know this. Most anyone who has even basic understanding of Reagan knows this. But you refuse to acknowledge this because you can see that it illustrates exactly why Reagan would be disgusted to see who his beloved nation elected as PotUS.
The nominee to head the education department said yesterday that she's not sure if schools will be allowed under the Trump Administration to. teach black history.
Oops! I meant elicit.
Good grief Drakk, quit whining. I can use whatever words I wish to express my point.
How convenient! I asked you a critical question about a major policy action by Trump and you claim to not understand tariffs enough to opine. How can you possibly weigh in on what Trump is doing if you do not even understand how tariffs work?
I suggest you get educated real quick because Trump is creating major problems for all of us and unnecessarily so.
I asked this question:
Since you do not know enough about tariffs to even opine here is some basic information. And I am not going to use my own words, I am going directly to a third party.
Spend some time and get at least somewhat informed.
I believe that you do indeed understand tariffs. I believe you cannot admit the problems that Trump is causing and that you would actually feign ignorance rather than deal with the probative question I posed.
Bottom line, tariffs are paid by domestic companies who then pass this on to the end consumer. This will raise prices. This is the exact opposite of what Trump is supposed to do. Trump, however, presents tariffs as if they are a source of income from the targeted nations. That is total BULLSHIT yet people (for some reason) still believe Trump.
But worse, the way Trump is handling tariffs damages international relationships. He is operating like a bully, burning through USA credibility, publicly demeaning trade partners with unreasonable demands rather than engaging them in private, civil negotiation. So even if he retracts his tariffs, he has caused unnecessary damage. Nations such as Canada will, I predict, work to lessen their dependence upon the USA (bad for us) because they now have absolute proof that the USA cannot be trusted to ensure their elected PotUS is not a tyrant. If I were a leader of any nation that depends on the USA, I would be increase investigations into alternatives and the formulation of contingency plans given the historically unusual and extreme intention that Trump has demonstrated.
In very short order.
Unemployment will rise quickly.
Inflation will rise again.
Nations won't trust us because of the Trump's threats about tariffs and more broken treaties.
China will move into the voids left behind by abandoned USAID projects with it's Belt and Road initiatives.
Why? Because starving people and helplessly sick people will go to whoever provides the food and medicine
and always remember that the USA abandoned them.
We are losing allies daily which will allow Russia and China to do what they want.
Democracy will suffer internationally because the weakness has been exposed by the current POTUS.
The word of the USA is rather weak at the moment. Trump cancelled previous treaties and now his economic
warfare is cancelling government contracts by the thousands based on his feelings while he is surrounded by
yes men and cabinet members who make the Grant Administration shine by comparison.
He's even demanded money back from a defense contractor whose project was started during the first Trump
term and was concluded over two years ago, because newspapers in Hungary and Russia said there was
"social deception" involved.
Can't make this shit up.
If you mean I understand them as a sort of tax on goods coming into the country then, yes. I understand that much. What I don't know about is the political and economic theories behind them or what effects tariffs have had historically. Has every application of tariffs always been bad or do they sometimes actually work and under what circumstances? Simply saying tariffs are bad because they raise prices is an insufficient reason, in my opinion. For instance, and this is pure speculation, I wonder if the tariffs were high enough and stayed in place long enough it might not bring back manufacturing to this country, as it would be cheaper to make things here. Especially if congress tried to make it attractive to do so. Don't know, because I have just a dictionary understanding of the word "tariff" and I am not an economist.
Okay. Suppose I become an economist and understand every detail of Tariffs, write books about it and so on. Then what? Trump somehow gets unelected now that I know everything about tariffs? He's going to change his policy or something? He'll call me and ask my opinion? I'll join the Trump Haters club? I mean, what do you think is going to happen?
Is knowing about tariffs a prerequisite to making comments about Trump? Is that the only one or is there a list you can give me?
Tariffs historically have been used as a means to reduce the demand on select imports to enable domestic manufacturers a chance to be more competitive. They are not normally used as punitive measures and threats; on rare occasion they have been used for retaliation. Prior to the introduction of income tax in 1913, tariffs were the primary source of federal revenue; since then, they have been used as part of protectionist policies (i.e. to help domestic industries).
I have never stated nor implied that.
Given the state of global economics, if we imposed tariffs long enough to bring back lost manufacturing sectors, the end result would be an increase in price. The reason manufacturing is imported is because of cheaper labor costs outside of the USA. Companies literally can manufacture cheaper outside of the USA.
If everyone understood tariffs (Trump's key tool) then his polls would reflect that. Trump is influenced by polls. Trump's enablers (in particular, Congress) are influenced by polls. If the American public shows strong opposition to tariffs as a way to generate revenue that will take much of the wind out of Trump's sails. This is something we have observed.
Further, come midterms, if tariffs continue and prices rise, those who understand the macro cause-and-effect will vote to diminish Trump's power by creating a political check (the Ds will gain power).
Not a serious question. And you were doing so well too.
Another point is the notion of trade imbalance. Trump keeps yapping about being ripped off whenever we import more than we export to a country. That is basically Trump's stupidity. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a trade imbalance with an individual nation. If consumers have a high demand for something that cannot be appropriately supplied domestically it makes good sense to enable consumers to buy imports. It does indeed make sense for a nation like the USA to export more than it imports, but to deem a trade imbalance with a particular nation as them "ripping us off" is ridiculous.
The key problem with individual nations is not necessarily imbalance, but dependence. A smart PotUS would focus not on balance with each individual trade partner but rather dependence upon them for critical items. So it does not really matter that Canada is the largest supplier of crude to the USA, what matters is how dependent we are on them. And Canada is not a problem. China, however, is. We have a critical dependence on China for certain rare Earth elements (among other things). This is entirely unhealthy and our past presidents and congresses have let this problem fester.
So forget about this utterly stupid notion of Trump's that nations are ripping us off and focus instead on developing domestic and foreign sources so that we are critically dependent on as few nations as possible.
And because of our dependence on China and the time it would take for us to become sufficiently independent, Trump poking them gratuitously is stupidly counterproductive.
For shame
Better question is why are leftists crying over shit HE SAID HE WILL DO. You knew t was coming and he was not your typical politician that says one thing during a campaign and does the exact opposite after they win.
Trump is criticized for his stupid actions. The fact that people like you voted for him with the expectation that he would engage in stupid actions like gratuitous punitive tariffs does not change the fact that his actions are bad for the nation. Will his supporters ever catch on?
Because I'm sad to see democracy die in America.
Well I have said this before, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
We are only 4 weeks into this clown fest.
People are fighting back through the courts.
If the courts hold up with reasonable results we'll be fine.
We are less than 14 months from the next election.
We could be 4 years from when McKinley becomes Denali again and the Gulf of America fades into history,
we will be back in the Paris Accord for four more years - and NATO - if they will have us back.
Don't confuse our reputation as flakes with Democracy, yet.
Federalist Society
Then you need to tell that to yourself. For weeks after the election, you screeched that he was SAYING he was going to impose taxes. He was not president yet, so he could not yet take ACTION.
Now you are whining about the exact opposite of what you were whining about then.
Make up your mind.
"he fact that people like you voted for him with the expectation that he would engage in stupid actions like gratuitous punitive tariffs does not change the fact that his actions are bad for the nation."
The fact that people like you that continuously whine about all things Trump is an embarrassment to the country.
" Will his supporters ever catch on?"
Will you (collective you) leftists catch on that there are more that do approve (70 percent) of what Trump is doing and radical leftists like you are in the majority?
Those of us in the 70 percent of his approval do not care what you think.
That is true but if they come back with decisions you don't like, will you accept them?
Reason why I am asking is because the trend is going towards Trump's favor.
Where is that happening?
First of all, analysis is not screeching. Second, I never stated that Trump was going to impose taxes. You do not know what you are talking about.
What I said is that imposing tariffs would raise consumer prices. There is a fundamental difference there; do you understand it?
And what is the exact opposite that you have invented? Always with the dishonest bullshit.
You think I am a radical leftist? Do you see 'radical leftists' everywhere you look; because they must be everywhere given your implicit criteria? How utterly ridiculous.
Anyway, you are using the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It does not matter how many people approve of Trump (and it is not 70% of the population, so get a grip). The vast majority of the world once thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Do you approve of Trump's gratuitous tariffs? Do you understand that tariffs are paid by domestic companies and passed on to consumers? Do you understand that prices will rise as a result? And if the trade wars continue to escalate, do you think that amplifies or reduces inflation?
Wow, TiG! That almost sounded like maybe, just maybe, you understand at least a little why I don't want to comment on an issue I don't feel I know enough about to give an informed opinion.
It is when it is done over and over again with no point given.
"Second, I never stated that Trump was going to impose taxes"
I meant tariffs, but you knew that
"Always with the dishonest bullshit. "
Mirror mirror
"You think I am a radical leftist?"
Yes, just as you always claim Trump supporters are cult members.
"Do you see 'radical leftists' everywhere you look"
Only where it is obvious
It does not matter how many people approve of Trump "
Only because you are mad such a large number do. Not my problem.
The rest of your rant is nothing more than crap covered over and over. No need to address it once again.
Sometimes I don't even know why some bother.
I agree, one should not comment on an issue unless one has reasonable command of the subject matter.
What is your point?
Sure got that right.
No I did not know that. Given some invent shit out of thin air all the time, how is someone supposed to distinguish this from an honest statement?
So you meant to say "he [Trump] was SAYING he was going to impose tariffs.". Yes, were you unaware that Trump had claimed repeatedly on the campaign trail that he was going to impose tariffs? Given he made that claim, it was certainly reasonable to discuss what that would mean to the American consumer. Right? What, exactly, is your complaint?
And he did indeed impose tariffs. So now we have actual specifics that we can analyze. Is that a problem for you?
Do you approve of Trump's gratuitous tariffs? Do you understand that tariffs are paid by domestic companies and passed on to consumers? Do you understand that prices will rise as a result? And if the trade wars continue to escalate, do you think that amplifies or reduces inflation?
No one expects to hear anything different from you (collectively, you) despite the evidence.
Thankfully, ( and hopefully ) I hope you aren't directly affected by the increased unemployment, increased
inflation or any of the spreading fallout which will inevitably make the VA and whole Federal government
less effective. Better hope that Big Balls who works for DOGE isn't walking around with a thumb drive
with access to the military retiree's monthly disbursement from Louisville that he can stop anytime
Trump or Musk have a "feeling".
Dozens of Departments and agencies established by Congress have been frozen in place despite the laws against this and the fact that Congress determines the spending.
Hundreds of Agency heads, Department heads and employees were offered questionable buyouts without any legal basis.
They were within a few days notified that they were fired, within a few days told that the firings were rescinded,
only to be fired again last Friday.
If this is your idea of Democracy, who needs it?
Because of security clearances the people who worked for the National Nuclear Security Administration were only available by a highly secured email system. Employees are forbidden to bring their cell phones to workcand no one is supposed to know each others phone numbers, personal info etc.
So when Trump, Musk or Big Balls notified them all by top secret emails that they were fired, their email access was promptly deleted and they were completely cut off from the Angecy.
Except that they were mostly fired by "accident" and now the agency wants them back but has no means to communicate with them.
ClusterFuck MC, Can't make this shit up. This first four weeks has been SNAFU and FUBAR.
Not the way a Democracy is supposed to be run.
Like I said elsewhere, wait til they start laying off people in Louisville and your pension is delayed.
Trump Desperately Tries to Rehire Staff After Purge at Nuclear Agency
Apparently you cannot help but respond.
The power is yours not to respond.
It has taken less than a month for Trump to corrupt. and politicize the Department of Justice. Look at today's news about the federal prosecutors in NY. I
Well deserved, in many opinions, by a majority..................
You're 4 years late on this one and have the wrong President.
. Don’t like your old boss? Report him or her for “disguising DEI.” Want to win some brownie points with the new boss? Send in damning evidence about your colleagues’ private conversations
Imagine thinking this is new.
I for one am shocked by the dishonesty of it. MAGA was elected with the mission to destroy democracy in America. MAGA is effectively destroying democracy in America.
Why aren't they trumpeting their accomplishments?
I am!!!!!!!! Why are you complaining about saving taxpayers money on programs or NGO's that shouldn't have had it in the first place?
Which amounts to an octogenarian piss in the ocean. They aren't there to save money.
For the same reason I don't complain about falling meteorites. They're so rare that they don't need any attention.
Oh, and also... You should never use an apostrophe to make a plural. The plural of NGO is NGOs, not NGO‘s. Apostrophes have two roles: they may indicate possession, as in "that is Joe‘s hat" or they may indicate a contraction, as in "that isn't Joe", where "is not" is shortened. Very simple rule: never use an apostrophe to make a plural.
You're welcome. (Apostrophe used in a contraction.)
Um, wow. So, by that reasoning, you'd be okay with me taking 20% of your paycheck without any explanation or justification as to what I'm doing with it? Okay. 20% is admittedly excessive. Let's make it 1%. Heck, let's make it 0.5%. Maybe 0.01%? Whatever amount you're comfortable with, you're saying you're perfectly fine with spending some portion of your workday, say an hour, earning money you give to someone else to do something you don't agree with? For instance, you clock in at 9:00 am and, for the next hour, know that you're making money to fund putting the Ten Commandments into the Public School system?
You equate "20%" and "rare". Yup...
But we all have done this our entire lives because we realize that we must pay for government and government is necessary. Since government will return benefits unequally, we all pay taxes for services that we will not benefit from and not have any real control over. For example, locally, I have been paying property taxes for years and am helping fund education for local children. My kids are adults and gain no benefit from this. But I understand the principle and am good with it.
It does, however, make sense to pay attention to the big picture such as being concerned about the level of deficit spending, national debt, defense spending, climate/environmental spending, foreign aid, etc. because those are highly impactful items and they will often be part of an articulated platform that we can then vote on.
But after that, the politicians are making decisions for us and we have very little control. No point worrying about minutia — especially when we are talking about rarities such as what Bob has noted.
Now, that said, I personally would love to see the federal government engage in a serious analysis of spending and thoughtfully go after waste based on some well-conceived criteria. I am confident the amount of waste is substantial. An example of waste is paying to run departments whose deliverables are never used. Another example is funding initiatives after their funding has expired. There are so many ways for waste (and fraud) to manifest and one rule of life we should all recognize is that the natural order is disorder ... waste grows like weeds.
That's the impossibility of the situation, though. Of the thousands of dollars I pay in property taxes, the single largest portion goes to public education, even though I have no children. Ultimately, I'm forced at gunpoint to spend some portion of my workday I don't actually want to do to support someone else's kid's education. And by "gunpoint" I mean that resistance, taken to its ultimate conclusion, will end with a cop and a gun in my face.
But it's more complicated than even that. I am actually more than willing to contribute to the education of a child, even though I don't have any of my own. At the same time, I'm completely dissatisfied with the public education system of today. I'm forced to pay for someone else's kid to be educated but have no say in what that education is. That is, I have to pay money I earned with my own effort in order for other people to take it for the purpose of indoctrinating a child into values I don't hold.
Now, take that concept and extend it to something like Biden spending my tax dollars to promote LGTBQ issues in foreign countries. I'm literally spending a portion of my workday supporting something I don't believe in and consider immoral and there's nothing I can do about it, other than vote for someone like Trump. Do you get that? Can you not see that it is not a matter of his character but, rather, that he will do something that aligns with my desires? If you are going to write a note to your wife, do you really care what color the pen is?
Bob. Do you really think people don't see you evaded the question?
I hope they see the dishonesty of your question.
Because you are part of a civil society. You do realize that others also spend a portion of their day working for benefits that come (or will come) to you.
And I pay taxes to help support infrastructure, government services, etc. that religious organizations make use of but do not support with taxes. But I do not have your silly notion of zero-sum game. I understand that taxes are a collective thing. That we pool our money (albeit not by choice) to fund government services (albeit wasteful).
Well this is where voters use their vote. This is where voters contribute to campaigns to get people they prefer. But focus on what really matters. I, for one, would never let a minor issue like this make much of a difference in my vote. It is the big items that matter most to me.
There is no logical way that the government will ever be perfect for every individual. So why do you stress yourself out worrying about such minor things? Life is imperfect.
Sure, that makes sense if Trump was going to fix the major problems you perceive. But you need to recognize that you do not get just the policies you want, you get the whole package. Further, what you actually get is NOT necessarily what Trump promised.
And that is the issue. Look at the big picture. Do you really care more that some minor amount of tax dollars are going to promote LGBTQ+ in other nations than you do about maintaining productive international trade relationships and keeping inflation at a normal rate and continuing to encourage interest rates to drop while maintaining the otherwise excellent factors of our economy?
So, a billion here, a billion there next thing you know we saved a trillion, I'll take it. Please make sure the Democrats keep opposing the removal of wasteful spending.
And what is wrong with public education? What exactly is your beef with ensuring that the children of the nation grow up educated, literate, numerate, and knowing when the government is trying to be taken over illegally and unconstitutionally, as it is right now? It is in part because of public education that the nation achieved the status that it enjoys, at least until the current administration.
There are ways to comport oneself and channels created by the laws and the Constitution that Trump, et.al. are blatantly ignoring. The Congress is under control of the President's party and apparently seems to harbor no misgivings in the violation and usurpation of their Constitutional powers.
They're complaining because some of those NGOs make donations to Democrats, they fund Democrats idiotic pet projects. They're losing their money flow.
Yikes. Everyone who pays taxes pays for something they dont like or use. Everyone who doesnt own a home is paying for the tax deductions homeowners get. People who dont fly at all pay for airports and the FAA. People who have never been on a cruise ship in their lives and never will be, pay for the access the ships have to ports and for the tax exemptions they get. Donald Trump built a giant tower in Chicago 15 or 20 years ago and demanded huge concessions from the city, which they gave him to get the building built here. I doubt if 1 in 1000 Chicagoans give a damn if that building was built here, and will never use it or patronize it.
Certain things are believed to benefit society. People who don't own cars pay for highways. Because they are believed to benefit society. Like public schools.
Yesterday the Republican House passed a bill that will add 4 trillion dollars to the national debt. Are you good with that so that the upper 1% will get the lions share of the proposed tax cuts. Or should they just slash Medicaid and Medicare ?
Do you mean having to treat some guy's delusion that he's a woman and wants to share the same locker room with my daughter and which is actively pushed by my tax-funded government? That sort of benefit?
Oh. Do you mean like every single non-profit in existence in this country, religious or not?
Plus, viewing non-profits as not paying taxes isn't quite right. The money they get is taxed. It's just paid by the ones donating as income tax. Taxing non-profits again would be a kind of double jeopardy. Since non-profits are not in the business of profit (hence the name) taxing them would amount to making people pay the government for the act of charity.
So your example is a bad one. It assumes a situation that doesn't really exist.
Um, yeah but, apparently, if they don't use that vote in a manner acceptable to you, we get what we have here. You, JR and others whining incessantly about Trump. And to no point. You apparently think that if you whine loudly enough and for long enough, somehow Trump will not be president. Not sure how you think that's going to work out for you guys.
Not sure what your point is, here. That I should just be a quiet little sheep and just be happy with my patch of grass? And who decided the things I care about are minor?
Yes, I recognize this. I've actually been sitting here for minutes, looking at this statement and wondering "Does he really think I'm not aware of this?"
That's not the issue and I am looking at the big picture, which you don't seem to know about. It isn't the amount of tax dollars spent on things that I don't approve of that is the issue. It's that the government believes it has the right to spend my taxes that way. What, in the Constitution, grants the government the ability to social engineer society, especially in a country not even ours? The Constitution rightly bars the government from forcing religion on people, but somehow it's okay to force the morality of the LGTBQ community not only on its citizens, but to do so in entirely different countries? Seriously? And I have to pay for it? If the government were doing the same thing with religion, you'd be having cows that subsequently had kittens!
Get used to these guys in women's rooms and showers! Under current rules they must use the lady's rooms in the US Capitol.
Trying to figure out your point, but it escapes me. Help a guy out???
The government forces you to pay taxes. It doesn't force you to agree with the morality of anything.
That is inaccurate.
Really? What do you think the battle over things like DEI is about, then?
I stated "You do realize that others also spend a portion of their day working for benefits that come (or will come) to you." Did you not read my comment, not understand my comment, or are you just engaging in faux obtuseness? My point was that these other guys are also contributing taxes to benefit you and not them.
Yes, feel free to expand on my example. I used a religious example because I knew that benefits you. Looks like you are arguing just to be argumentative again.
Wow ... you are just so far out on a limb. So you want us all to consider non-profits as paying taxes because those who donated money to the non-profit must pay income tax. You put this forth as something we should take seriously?
Drakk, churches (with few exceptions) do NOT pay federal, state, or property tax. So, per my point, they receive benefits from society (infrastructure) that they do not pay into. You are being ridiculous in your attempt to refute my point (which you cannot do because you are dead wrong).
You are whining. Focus on making an argument. Apparently you are upset that I put forth real criticism about what Trump is doing. Apparently this is a bad thing now? That because an individual cannot unseat a PotUS the individual should just STFU and not criticize bad actions by a PotUS? You are again being ridiculous.
Well I think any rational individual would compare a relative tiny amount of money going to LGBTQ+ matters in foreign nations as minor compared to a PotUS engaging in gratuitous tariffs, starting a trade war, firing inspectors general, firing DoJ employees who worked on his criminal case, etc. Factors, especially those that deal with the economy, national debt, etc. tend to be seen as major and some relatively chickenshit 'woke' funding as minor.
But, hey, Drakk, if you are so upset about LGBTQ+ matters that you elevate them to major concerns and have no stated concerns about a PotUS taking actions that will almost certainly spike inflation and harm the economy, that is your prerogative.
Judging just from your responses in your latest post, it would be easy for someone to wonder about almost anything you proclaim. You actually tried to argue (as a deflection no less) that I was wrong to note that churches benefit from public infrastructure that they do not support with taxes (federal,state,property) by pointing out that their donators pay taxes. Just ... too ... nutty ... for ... words.
For example, tariffs are Trump's biggest blunder thus far, IMO. If you understand how tariffs work, how can you not be critical of Trump taking unnecessary and overkill actions that will, in the short-term, exacerbate the problems that he was elected to fix?
It is as if you know nothing about how governments work.
This suggests you do not understand how the CotUS works. The CotUS was designed to create a structure and impose limits on government. It is a limiting agent. You seem to think that a specific action by the government must be enumerated in the CotUS for it to be allowed. In reality, the constitutional test is if the CotUS prohibits an action. (We call such an action 'unconstitutional'.)
So your question is confused.
Yes. Just like I am forced to pay Trump's salary even though I am watching him damage our nation on a weekly basis. Just like I have pay taxes which build / maintain infrastructure that churches use. (And, by the way, I really have no issue with this ... just using this as an example.)
DEI is not an immoral concept, but if you think it is no one is forcing you to believe it is moral
Those are all trans men (born female) who by your thinking and new rules for the US Capitol must use womens restrooms and lockerrooms. And, they can only compete in women's sports!
Favoring people because of race or gender is not immoral?
That's a matter of opinion.
I would say they ALL make donations to the Democrats, IMO it's nothing more than a money laundering scheme for the Democrats.
No, it's not, its discriminatory.
Oh, that's funny, considering your post of 5.1.9 didn't address the point I was making in 5.1.6 . Instead, I had to listen to lectures from you and everyone else on the left about why we pay taxes, as if that reason escapes me or that I object to paying them.
The point was not that we have to pay taxes, it's how the government spends it. Your argument seems to be just pay your taxes because in some way or another you'll eventually get some benefit. Don't worry, be happy.
No, I don't want you to consider non-profits as paying taxes. I want you to realize that the money they get does get taxed. That's why taxing non-profits would be unfair. One of the reasons, anyway.
No, it's just irrelevant, as it doesn't address the point.
Well, that would be a great point if the issue under discussion was the comparison you outline here. It's not. That's just you trying to change the subject, like you always do.
And straw men appear to be your prerogative. The issue is that the government is spending tax dollars on social engineering on moral issues it has no business doing. It would be the same thing if the government was spending tax dollars on sending Bibles into Africa or trying to promote Christianity in China.
I can't believe you could write this and still argue with what I'm saying. Yes, the Constitution was designed as a limit on government. That's the whole point, TiG. The government as it currently operates appears to have no concept of limits when it spends money on things like this. It doesn't matter what the monetary amount is, no matter how badly you want to make it about that. It's the fact that the government is doing it in the first place.
These are not close to be comparable examples. Neither one is an example of government overreach. It's just you trying to make it seem like I'm complaining about having to pay taxes.
Okay, thanks. Think I'll just give this one a pass.
Except that Trump's policies will add trillions more to the debt. The House GoP are already drafting bills to raise the debt ceiling. Again Trump and Musk are not out to save money, they are sowing chaos to remove government oversite so they can do anything they and their mega donor class buddies want without concern for you.
If they were doing clear and careful analysis of spending and working with Congress on those line items I'd (not a dem) be on your side. They aren't.
Which is what I addressed. Clearly, you are intentionally posting obnoxious, dishonest posts.
I think everyone knows that income is taxed. When talking about non-profits paying taxes, it is stupid to point out that those donating to non-profits pay income tax. I never suggested otherwise; I noted that churches (and other not-for-profit entities) generally do not pay federal, state, and property taxes yet benefit from the infrastructure, etc. that results from those taxes. (And, I noted, that I am okay with that.)
But surely you understand that in a for-profit business the money spent by patrons was ALSO subject to income tax; and now on TOP of that the non-profit must pay taxes as a legal entity.
Yes, that is your complaint. And my point is that while you have the right to complain all you want, I would focus more on big issues rather than minor crap. There will always be many tiny things that an individual does not approve of. That is how government operates. It is ridiculous to expect otherwise. Better to focus on the big issues.
So then why do you expect there to be a special provision that enables the government to send money to foreign nations for LGBTQ+ matters? Where in the CotUS is government limited from foreign aid? Show me that and you will have actually contributed honestly and productively to the conversation.
Of course not. A routine tactic of yours is to declare all examples, all analogies as irrelevant or wrong. It is predictable.
I don't want to spend my tax money making rich people richer. I think my moral stance is preferable to yours.
Discrimination
Don't want to admit the wrongheadedness of your thesis, huh?
How do you feel about these trans men being in lady's rooms?
The fact that you don't see the irony here is hilarious.
Going out to buy more microwave popcorn. This is becoming the circus of the century.
Good article, lots of valid opinions expressed.
It isn't efficient to tear it all down.
In order to identify fraud, waste and inefficiency, you have to understand the complete workings of an organization.
He is acting like a child jumping in and kicking the puzzle pieces off the board without ever looking at the picture.
Tearing out the plumbing without seeing where the pipes lead.
No understanding about what parts are efficient or even needed.
Just a giant DOGE Demolition Derby.
That is the nature of throwing red meat to your cult following.
That, unfortunately, is the point.
Trump, Deconstructor of Democracy.
The problem is if it is not torn down and built back the way it should be, a democrat president will just swoop in and refund everything Trump cut and the cycle will begin over again.
I, and 70 percent of Americans, would like to see the fraud, waste and abuse put out in public and those that are doing shamed and, if necessary, charged.