[BLKNSLVR]

> We may be looking at a lost decade.

We're looking at the US wilfully letting go of the possibiility of remaining the most powerful nation in the world.

Reduced health, reduced education, reduced funding for research, reduced international aid programs (which both garner goodwill whilst also creating a bulwark against those who profit from misery), reduced oversight / regulation of the power of capital, alienation of prior allies, reduced safety nets for the vulnerable, increased rhetoric against poorly defined 'foreign types', anti-intellectualism.

It's a helluva vacuum being created, and I'm not particularly optimistic about what's going to fill it.

[UncleOxidant]

I keep oscillating between are they just stupid or are they malicious and I'm starting to settle on the latter given the kinds of actions this administration is taking. Ironic that their voters thought they'd be mAkINg AMeRIcA gREaT aGAin when in fact they're going to cause us to lose our leadership role in many areas.

[esalman]

It's a good thing you are "starting to settle" 2025. I mean before 2020 they disbanded federal bodies for pandemic prep and look what happened.

[gwd]

But was that malice, or stupidity? Do you think they disbanded pandemic prep because they wanted people to die in a pandemic? It seems much more likely that they were too stupid to realize that being unprepared for a pandemic is way more costly than being prepared for one.

There's certainly a lot of malice: asking for names of FBI agents who worked on Jan 6 cases, and in putting Tulsi Gabbard over the CIA, refusing to enforce the laws against offering bribes to foreign officials, cutting agencies regulating Trump's and Musk's businesses. But cutting pandemic prep, firing people working on basic technology... that shows that they're both malicious and stupid.

[freejazz]

It doesn't really matter what their intent is when the result is the same.

Also...

> Do you think they disbanded pandemic prep because they wanted people to die in a pandemic

Are you familiar with the term reckless?

[gwd]

> It doesn't really matter what their intent is when the result is the same.

I mean, yeah, people die regardless of the motive. There's some saying about how boys may throw rocks in jest, but the frogs die in earnest. That's why it's important that people in power try to be careful not to kill people, and why it's important to elect people who are careful and try not to kill people.

But somewhere up the thread, someone said "I'm beginning to think it's malicious and not stupid". If that matters to you, then it matters.

> Are you familiar with the term reckless?

Are they culpable for their decision? Absolutely. The Hebrew word in the Bible translated "foolish" doesn't actually denote a lack of raw brainpower, but a certain kind of flaw in moral character. You can be both intelligent and foolish, just as you can have below-average brainpower and be wise.

But foolish is not malicious. Malice means you intend evil; foolish means you willingly ignored reality to your own detriment. I don't think Trump wanted people to die; he just found the necessity of spending money for pandemic planning inconvenient, and so ignored it.

Packing the top military with loyalists? He certainly intends evil there.

[esalman]

Saying this is stupidity is an underestimation. One does not simply become the most powerful and the richest man on earth by playing stupid. In fact we are stupid for believing so- that's exactly what they want.

[zombot]

Still, "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

[ruytlm]

To put it simply: this is not adequately explained by stupidity.

[kgwxd]

I really hate that aphorism. Malicious people love it though. “Fool me once…”

[_DeadFred_]

Except these people have stated their intentions as malicious over and over and over so there is no need to 'ascribe' anything to them.

[naijaboiler]

in a practical sense, well executed stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

[throw0101c]

> Still, "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

¿Porque no los dos?

> “I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”

* https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/flo...

[freen]

Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

[_DeadFred_]

They have stated/published that their intentions are malicious over and over again. But for some reason people keep wanting to steelman their position into something different than what they say it is.

[lonelyasacloud]

The confusion is caused by a belief that it is Trump [0] who is making calling the shots.

[0] He probably believes it as well.

[Imustaskforhelp]

I genuinely believe that Elon Musk just "wants to do something , because he promised efficiency" , does the worst job at it because he's incompetent at such stuff and tries to oversell what he does.

I once saw a video of a guy explaining genuinely how elon can technically reach its number of $ tax payers saved, it required US to invest highly in a digital system like that of estonia.

But oh no , he's going to take your grandma s social security.

Elon musk is both stupid and malicious.

I am not pro billionare , I genuinely believe that there might be very billionaire who aren't ruthless in their business and even a little malicious.

I think its totally possible that Elon can be stupid and be the richest man in the world. I have gotten a Elon Musk biography and I really used to admire him untill he bought twitter and renamed it X. to me , it was something of a collosal waste of branding. Twitter is Twitter , not X , yet Elon made it X , what is its relation ? , its like facebook naming itself J or whatever , I don't know.

It has all been a bad show after that. I think he has shown signs of being both stupid and malicious. He called somebody a pedo without no reason I think. He has a fragile ego , I don't know .

I think we need to stop glorifying ruthless bussinessman like billionaires , I think its hard to say this on a startup forum.

I don't know , I think you can appreciate startups / the freedom it brings (if you are genuinely interested in some tech and feel limited by current employment opportunities) and also dislike billionaires if they are fragile ego.

These two aren't contradictory.

[andix]

You forgot "wilfully letting go of democracy". US democracy is far away from dying, but who knows how much longer it can keep holding up.

[digitaltrees]

It’s not far away from dying. I would argue that it’s already too late. The trump administration has shown that it can seize the power to control spending which is constitutionally an exclusive power if congress and courts can’t and won’t do anything about it. We are past a constitutional crisis, republicans had a theory of a unitary executive and prove they can stream roll other branches. Now trump and others are talking about a third term. They play it off as a joke but that’s how they have succeeded in moving the goal posts already.

[InsideOutSanta]

The US spent the last hundred years shifting power from congress to the president, because nobody in congress wanted the blame for any decisions and be either primaried, or lose the election. Trump isn't seizing power, he's just using the power voluntarily given to him. American democracy wasn't ended by a revolution, it was ended by lawfully elected cowards.

[digitaltrees]

No. He is seizing it explicitly as laid out in project 2025. There is an explicit theory of a unitary executive that they say give him power. But they also mapped out the levers of power, control and possible resistance and are systematically and aggressively going after them. I would also point out that the American people didn’t vote for this because trump explicitly denied he would follow project 2025, and yet is implementing every detail down to the letter.

[pizza]

Here are some new concrete developments that I doubt the founders of the democracy would say are fine:

- the Executive Branch now has presumptive - if not absolute - immunity against all criminal official acts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_%282024...

- universities must obey Trump's culture war agenda, otherwise they will be de-accredited and a fine equal to the value of the entire university endowment will be leveraged - https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-vows-to-seize-endowm...

- President-elect Donald Trump and his top advisers have long cited impoundment, a little-known legal theory [... that] essentially claims that any president has unilateral authority to ignore Congress’s funding bills and withhold or “impound” funds meant for programs, agencies, or departments deemed unsuitable by the White House. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/3244202/...

[joquarky]

> otherwise they will be de-accredited

Who decides the ultimate authority on accreditation anyway?

Why can't we just start a new trust network?

[_heimdall]

Impoundment, or rather the idea that it is an issue, is a weird concept in general. Congress legislates executive directives that should be acted upon and provides a budget. They don't say "spend every dollar we give" and they rarely define metrics for success to know if the executive branch is meeting their goals.

The fact that the Trump administration is able to so easily chest the game and roll back agencies is a side effect of congress writing thousands of pages of legislation without ever bothering to define precisely what is expected of the executive branch.

[tsimionescu]

No, this is quite wrong. It is well understood in American law that "spend every dollar we give" is exactly what the budget approved by Congress means. It is then the duty of the executive branch to do so in an effective manner.

Laws shouldn't need to go into details on exactly how every last dollar is to be spent, they set the amount and the goals, and the executive exists to handle the details.

The problem is that the Trump administration is ignoring the laws they don't like. They're even trying to ignore a very explicit constitutional amendment (birthright citizenship). Writing more detailed laws would do nothing to make the Trump team follow the law.

[_heimdall]

I'd be very curious where in our laws it is written that congressional budgets must be spent in their entirety every year. I could just be wrong here, happy to learn something new.

> Laws shouldn't need to go into details on exactly how every last dollar is to be spent.

Laws should go into every detail that matters to those writing it. If all they care about is that the money is spent and that there's an agency with a certain name and one line mandate, sure that's all they need to specify. If the legislators cafe about what is or is not done, or if they care about any specific metrics of success, those should be codified in the law to make the intention and expectation clear.

Birthright citizenship and immigration is a whole other can of worms. We can go there but it's pretty off topic here.

[pfannkuchen]

A lot of people don’t like that “regulation” has been delegated to unelected agencies instead of having congress make laws.

Is the current structure of agencies with delegated regulatory powers specified in the constitution? I don’t think so. It isn’t explicitly forbidden, but it’s not like it’s what the founders had in mind or wrote down.

The current administration’s approach is activist in the sense that it would be more direct to just outlaw the current structure via congress. I suspect that isn’t possible at the moment due to the entanglement of corporate interests, regulatory agencies and lobbying money.

Activist action isn’t exactly new though. Maybe it hasn’t happened on the right wing as much in America in living memory, it feels like they felt like they were above it for a long time. They don’t feel like that anymore.

[_heimdall]

Trump is continuing a trend that has been going on since at least Bush Jr. Presidents for a couple decades now have been moving more power into the executive branch.

Obama and Biden both talked about undoing this, but neither did. The Patriot Act still exists, three letter agencies still have authority to spy on American citizens, and immigration laws still defy what's written on the Statue of Liberty (I think most have forgotten how harsh Obama was on southern immigration).

[mindslight]

... which has been allowed and caused by the Republican congressional obstructionism going on since the 90's. Bush, Obama, and Biden could have reduced their own use of executive power, but they couldn't undo it - rather it was Congress that would have had to reign them in and shrink executive power. Just as the current Congress is ultimately allowing Trump's ongoing authoritarian power grabs, rather than passing laws and impeaching.

For another example, take the frequent neofascist argument that the federal agencies are "unaccountable" unless they are under the direct command of the President. No, the agencies were created by Congress, and have always been accountable to Congress. But Congress has not been doing its job, which is why they seem unaccountable.

[try_the_bass]

> No, the agencies were created by congress, and have always been accountable to Congress. But Congress hasn't been doing its job, which is why they seem unaccountable.

If Congress hasn't been doing its job, then they don't just seem unaccountable, they actually are.

[mindslight]

The levers of accountability could have been pulled any time, so it stands to say that they were still accountable. Perhaps they weren't held accountable as much as you or I would have liked. But the authority was there.

But either way I don't really see what greater point you're trying to make.

[_heimdall]

Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office? Or that Congress held primary decision making authority behind the number of executive orders signed by presidents since then?

[vkou]

> Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office?

Republicans have been able to stop congress from doing anything they didn't like since... 2010.

They can't even get their shit together to pass legislature when they control congress, but they've always been able to prevent it from passing legislature, or exercising oversight. Just like they are doing right now.

[mindslight]

No and no. I'm referring to Gingrich's attitude of never crossing the aisle leading to Congressional gridlock. And how a functioning Congress could have easily passed laws nullifying most executive orders (especially the ones grabbing extra power). It was precisely the power vacuum of Congress that enabled the strong executive.

[rayiner]

> For another example, take the frequent neofascist argument that the federal agencies are "unaccountable" without being under the direct command of the President

It’s not “neofascist” lol, it’s just what the constitution says. The first sentence of article II: “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

It’s not Congress’s job to hold executive branch employees accountable any more than it’s Congress’s job to hold judicial law clerks in the courts accountable. It’s the President’s job, in whom the executive power is vested.

That’s also reflected in the appointments clause. Anyone with discretionary authority must be either appointed by the president, or report to someone who is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf. The whole point is to make the executive branch highly responsive to Presidenfial elections.

[digitaltrees]

Congress is supposed to hold both employees and departments accountable. Employees are held accountable via the advise and consent power so that the leadership of departments isn't beholden to the executive. Departments are held accountable by the budget process, don't do a good job, don't get appropriations. The executive power is merely administrative and logistical.

[mindslight]

The executive power, as being laid out in the Constitution. Not all executive power. This is plainly clear by appointments requiring approval of the Senate. If the "executive branch" were meant to be a singular top-down command structure, then such approval (or ability to impeach) would not be required. This push for an authoritarian command structure is one pillar of what makes the term "fascist" appropriate.

I was not talking about the accountability of individual employees according to the law. The accountability I was talking about was the mandate for an agency. That was set by Congress when they created the agency, and can thus be clarified or changed by Congress at any time.

[freejazz]

>Trump is continuing a trend that has been going on since at least Bush Jr. Presidents for a couple decades now have been moving more power into the executive branch.

Are you familiar with the constitution? It describes which powers belong to the executive and which don't.

[brigandish]

Since Woodrow Wilson.

[UncleOxidant]

With a slight pause in the post-watergate era when Jimmy Carter was president.

[_heimdall]

The Dangerous History Podcast has a very interesting series in Wilson. The host was not a fan.

[brigandish]

I'm going to give it a listen, thanks. I found this funny and interesting interview with the host, safe to say, you're right he's not a fan! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usXS9ciS0gs

[malcolmgreaves]

False equivalence.

[_heimdall]

Tell me more.

[watwut]

It is not the same and sides are not the same.

[cyberax]

The US is a strong federative country. Individual states are almost literally _states_ (as in "country") and have a lot of power. They can impose their own carbon taxes, net neutrality rules, fund research, etc.

And more importantly, their local democracy is going strong.

[zamfi]

Actually, in many cases they cannot.

Take a look at the EPA "exception" that California has needed in order to impose more stringent fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.

Many forms of commerce or communication that are relevant across state lines (net neutrality rules, etc.) are considered a federal prerogative and states have limited ability to control these.

Yes, states could do more to fund research--and hopefully they will--but no state has the same level of tax rate as the federal government, and while the NSF budget is "noise" in the federal budget ($10B/$1.7T discretionary) it would be quite a big outlay for most states, even for California it would represent 3%+ of the total state budget to reproduce.

Though, now that I look at that number, maybe it's actually an opportunity for CA...

[cyberax]

> Take a look at the EPA "exception" that California has needed in order to impose more stringent fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.

Yet, WA now has a carbon tax for companies operating within its borders. And it was found constitutional by the SCOTUS.

> Many forms of commerce or communication that are relevant across state lines (net neutrality rules, etc.) are considered a federal prerogative and states have limited ability to control these.

The interstate agreements are allowed as long as they don't infringe on the sovereign Federal power.

And there are plenty of workarounds. For example, CA has these ridiculous agricultural inspection stations on freeways. They are legal because they don't technically deny you the freedom of movement, declining to submit to an inspection simply revokes your driving privilege in CA.

[hackyhacky]

> And more importantly, their local democracy is going strong.

I guess you never heard of gerrymandering.

[0_____0]

To your parent comment's point, this varies a lot by state!

[pstuart]

Enough to control the House.

[archagon]

States need a military to enforce their independence, but almost none have one of note. The National Guard is under the executive branch and state guards tend to be tiny (e.g. just 900 enlisted for CA).

[ajross]

States have "power", but not money. There are no state level science grants anywhere at the scale of the linked article.

[cyberax]

CA spends around $11B on the University of California system. The NIH budget is $47B. I haven't done the math, but I would hazard that the total amount of money spent on science by the Federal and the individual state authorities would be comparable.

It's just that historically the Federal government was leading with the fundamental research, but if push comes to shove, states can start spinning up replacement programs.

[Braxton1980]

Isn't CA a particularly rich state and not a good example of what states are capable of doing when compared to the federal government?

[directevolve]

I foresee three big challenges to funding science at the state level.

Shifting to state-level funding would require states to independently raise new taxes. Each state would have to work within the constraints of its state level constitution for levying that tax. Research would no longer be pork. This seems politically difficult.

States would have to either coordinate on which grants to fund or accept a siloed, fragmented system. That seems inefficient.

Institutes at lower-income states would not be subsidized by higher-income states and fail. That seems wasteful.

All that said, it might be the only alternative.

[ajross]

Running a university and administering research grants aren't remotely the same thing. Does any of that $11B go to fund science?

[acdha]

California spends $4.7B in general fund revenue on the UC system. Tuition is a bit more than that, but it’s paid by students for their personal benefit so you can’t just repurpose it because some billionaires want tax cuts.

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4862

That covers everything from paving roads and mowing grass to paying for their pension system and monitoring for wildfires, so the proportional increase for research funding would be even larger than it sounds because federal funding has been the backbone for that since WWII.

While you’d be looking at a significant increase in tax demand for them it’d be much worse for almost everyone else because California is also the richest state in the country, almost twice as rich as the second (Texas). There’s no way that isn’t a bloodbath for American science.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

Unless states have their own sovereign militaries that do not and cannot answer to the federal government that is of minor importance.

[UncleOxidant]

And yet states aren't allowed to form alliances with other states according to Article 1 section 10. Sure, states might be able to fund research, but most states on their own aren't going to be able to afford to do this effectively - but if several states could band together to, say, keep funding climate science that might help keep us on track and keep scientists employed until better times come back. But they can't do that.

[cyberax]

> And yet states aren't allowed to form alliances with other states

That's not quite correct. The judicial practice in the US is that the intestate compacts (agreements) require Congressional authorization only if they infringe on the sovereign Federal powers.

One good example for the 2nd Amendment lovers: states are free to make reciprocal agreements with other states for concealed carry permits. It doesn't require any authorization from the Congress.

Another example are the laws for taxation of multi-state corporations that the neighboring states can negotiate together.

[malcolmgreaves]

Except that the states have no power because an unchecked executive branch can just claim that it had authority and the states have no recourse to resist.

The US has an incredibly weak form of government.

[cyberax]

Don't get so depressed. The Executive branch in the US does not have a lot of power when it comes to influencing the states.

For example, Trump can't actually force states to change their school athlete programs. It doesn't have any power over individual states (or schools). All his DoE can do, is to threaten to withhold funding. And even that is being contested because the Congress has not authorized it.

However, if he does manage to withdraw the funding, that's just 6% of total spending on schools in CA ( https://lao.ca.gov/Education/EdBudget/Details/900 ) and 8% in NY. The states will just shrug and go on.

The discretionary part of the US Federal budget is not large, on the scale of the country.

[Braxton1980]

Are states exactly flush with cash to plug even small gaps in school budgets?

You mentioned CA which is rebuilding from massive fires, can they afford that?

What about Arizona, 2021 to 2022 19% of their schools budget was federal funding.

What happens if there is a natural disaster, Trump can withhold funds to force changes. Can a state turn down that level of assistance? They would have to prioritize recovery I assume and just accept the change.

>Don't get so depressed. The Executive branch in the US does not have a lot of power when it comes to influencing the states.

Money is power

[zmgsabst]

Congress has authorized it: civil rights laws make schools ineligible when violated, and Trump is claiming various programs violate those.

[rayiner]

1) The fact that the President embodies the executive branch is just what Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The same people who say that’s “just a theory” also think that “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law. They’re not serious people.

2) Trump hasn’t seized the spending power. Congress was the one that delegated spending power to the executive branch by appropriating multi-billion line items and directing the executive branch to spend the money with only the vaguest instructions. Live by the delegation sword die by the delegation sword.

[dylan604]

1) While Article II says....it also depends on a checks and balance system with the other two branches of government. We've already seen where the congressional branch is laying down for the executive, and we've also seen where the judicial branch has granted immunity essentially giving carte blanche to the executive. Without equal branches providing checks and balances, you've just ceded power the Constitution requires. Any of the lower courts trying to hold on to any semblance of checks and balance will eventually be reversed once it reaches SCOTUS.

[rayiner]

The system has specific, well-defined checks and balances. For example, Congress can limit the executive’s control over spending by enacting specific appropriations bills with concrete line items. But it hasn’t done so for decades. It has done things like appropriate single $1.7 billion line items for USAID, leaving it to the executive’s discretion how to spend it with only the vaguest guidelines. Congress having done that, it’s not for say the courts to “check” that by insisting that the executive can’t exercise all the discretion Congress provided it.

And your point about immunity is misinformed. The Supreme Court held that the President has immunity for official acts. This is a no-brainer. You can’t sue Congressmen for their official acts either, or judges.

If the President didn’t have immunity, Georgia prosecutors would be able to indict and convict Joe Biden in some red county in connection with the murder of Laken Riley, on the theory that Biden recklessly or negligently opened the border leading to her death.

[dylan604]

> And your point about immunity is misinformed. The Supreme Court held that the President has immunity for official acts.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. You'll never convince me that a phone call from a candidate trying to convince someone to "find" extra votes is an official act of office. Nor is assembling a league of fake electors because the official ones will not bend the knee

[digitaltrees]

Neither point is accurate. The executive power doesn't include the ability to create a fake department (DOGE), with a fake head (Elon Musk), lie that he isnt running it in court, and then run roughshod over the regulations and laws congress passed around employment regulations.

You know what the constitution does require, advise and consent. Not a single thing elon musk is doing is legal and yet their are seizing the power to remake departments created and funded by congress. If you want to eliminate USAID or any other department have CONGRESS pass a law to make the change, anything else is a constitutional seizure of power.

The executive power doesn't include a concept such as impoundment, yet the trump administration seized $80mil of FEMA funds from the the city of new york bank account.

[bruce511]

Bearing in mind that this administration won the election and a lot of what they are doing is more-or-less what they campaigned on, I'm not sure democracy is at risk.

One can pick around the details, but for example with regard to the firings, voters clearly approved of the concept of smaller, cheaper government. Which is basically what's happening.

This is essentially democracy in action. Yes, the voters may come to regret their vote, yes they likely didn't understand what they were voting for, but that's the flaw in democracy we're aware of.

Is this what everyone wants? Clearly not. But democracy is about majority rule, not consensus.

When an election is canceled then one can talk about democracy dying.

But right now, Americans are just getting what the majority voted for. They may not necessarily like it, but they voted for it. And the lack of reaction by Republicans in congress suggests that they feel the best way to be reelected is to go along with it.

Like if or not, the "democracy" part is working well.

[jltsiren]

This is based on a too literal interpretation of democracy.

Democracy had a bad reputation in the ancient world, because unconstrained majority decisions often led to terrible outcomes. In the modern world, democracy usually means liberal democracy, which includes things like the rule of law and constitutional protections. As a rough approximation, a constitution exists to prevent the government from doing what the voters want.

A constitution in itself a worthless document, and the checks and balances have no power. The power comes from conventions. Conventions on how the constitution should be interpreted and how the people in power should act within the constitutional framework. If too many people ignore the conventions and interpret the laws and regulations literally to their advantage, democracy will die. It died in the Roman Republic, and it has died in many modern republics. Plenty of authoritarian states maintain nominally democratic institutions. And many of them became like that in a way that was at least nominally legal.

[bruce511]

Ultimately the checks and balances are also elected. Directly in the case of congress, indirectly in the case of the judiciary. (Mitch McConnell obstructed merrick garland and was rewarded for it.)

Of course unrestrained majority decisions lead to terrible outcomes. This is well understood, and has been demonstrated over and over recently (think Brexit.)

Democracy is objectively a flawed system for this reason. It has never promised to deliver the best, or even good, government. It is what it is.

I agree, this is a literal interpretation of democracy. It is "the will of the people". I'm not sure that anything else could still be even called a democracy.

[graemep]

> This is well understood, and has been demonstrated over and over recently (think Brexit.)

That is a matter of opinion. Most of what is terrible about Brexit is "the media hate it". Economic outcomes have been in line with comparable EU countries so the promised "project fear" disaster (e.g. the Treasury prediction of a collapse of the economy in the wake of a vote for Brexit - not even on implementation) did not happen.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80772140f0b...

[coliveira]

One thing Americans don't seem to realize is that the current constitution needs to be rewritten once we get out of this mess. One of the consequences of dictatorships is that they deform the constitution for their purposes. It seems that republicans have done enough to deform the system in an irreparable way.

[rayiner]

How would you propose rewriting it that wouldn’t just mean “less democracy” and “more control by credentialed elites?”

[aragilar]

Some suggestions:

* Drop the electoral collage * Proportional and/or preferential voting * Term limits/retirement ages * An independent electoral organisation with real teeth to prevent gerrymandering (and verify the election) * Free and easy voter IDs (if ID are ever required) * All election days are public holidays, with requirements to allow workers on the day to vote * Compulsory voting (works in AU) * Minimum number of polling booths per X people * Absentee voting * Changing to a parliamentary system where the president is a figurehead

[Braxton1980]

Are you sure that any change to address the recent issues would always result in those two outcomes?

Also, Elon Musk is the richest elite in the world so it seems we already are at the bottom of the problem.

[kergonath]

The thing is, the current situation is "more control by credentialed elites". Way more than at any point since at least WWII. It’s just that the elites are oligarchs who kneeled before Trump. He is the only one giving credentials.

[myvoiceismypass]

Rewrite? You'll never even get 3/4 of the states to ratify a single constitutional amendment ever again.

[kelnos]

Not sure how a "rewrite" would even work. Our current constitution does not have any provisions for discarding it and starting over. The amendment process requires too many states to agree for any sweeping changes. (We couldn't even get enough states to pass something as simple and seemingly uncontroversial as the equal rights amendment before it expired.)

And I think this is -- at least for now -- actually a good thing. Because if we could rewrite the constitution, I suspect it would be rewritten by the same kind of people who wrote the Project 2025 playbook.

[mise_en_place]

Do you volunteer for such a massive undertaking?

Sarcasm aside, I'm seeing a lot of wackiness on both sides of the political spectrum lately. The Constitution is fine and provides provisions for changing it via amendments. You guys aren't involved in the political process at all, I caucused and was a delegate so I can tell you the system is fine and working as intended. Don't complain about it if you aren't even involved in the process. That just makes you look silly.

[_heimdall]

> This is based on a too literal interpretation of democracy.

Attempting to run a democracy in a non-literal way seems like a recipe for disaster.

That seems to imply that citizens get to cast a vote and have their voice heard...unless those in charge decide the citizens don't know what is best for them.

As a country we picked Trump. For better or worse we made that bed and we now have to lie in it.

[rayiner]

Folks on the left would do well to remember that the same unelected bureaucracy that declared “resistance” to Trump would destroy an AOC or Sanders presidency too. Ultimately, it’s a good thing if electing the President can effectuate drastic changes in the executive branch, because that’s the only real lever voters have for affecting the largest and these days most powerful branch of government.

[archagon]

In a modern nation, it’s not tenable to flush the federal government down the toilet every four years.

[turtlesdown11]

The "deep state" is just a scapegoat for stuff people don’t like or understand. It’s a way to dodge real issues. There’s no secret conspiracy—just a lot of people doing their jobs in a messy system.

[rayiner]

This is Orwellian double-speak. You’re defining “democracy” to mean “not democracy.”

Nor does the “constitution” support your view. Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

What you’re calling “democracy” and the “constitution” is neither. It’s Wilsonianism, an idea invented by a eugenicist who hated the constitution as well as democracy: https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/woodrow-wilson-s-c...

[jltsiren]

I don't see how your reply is related to my comment.

I was not defining democracy. I was describing the common real-world usage of the term, which has a more specific meaning than simple majority rule. It is commonly used as a shorthand for "liberal democracy". Some Americans use "republic" for the same concept, but that's misleading in other ways. Partly because some countries that are commonly understood to be liberal democracies are constitutional monarchies. And partly because some actual republics (such as North Korea or the member states of the former USSR) do not match the concept particularly well.

I was also not talking about any specific constitution, but constitutions in general. They all come with implicit and explicit assumptions that must hold, or the system will not work as intended. If some entities are supposed to function as checks and balances to each other, they are expected to remain independent. If they choose to collude instead, nobody is capable of stopping them if they decide to twist the constitution beyond recognition or outright break it.

I said that a constitution on its own is worthless. That means a constitution cannot enforce itself. There must be some people who are capable and willing to enforce it. But if they are capable of enforcing the constitution, they are also capable of breaking it. Which means there must be other people capable and willing to act as checks and balances. And so on. The system may work as long as those people act within the expectations, complying with both the spirit and the letter of the constitution. But if they reject the expectations and start looking for loopholes to take advantage of, they may find some. If that becomes too common, the constitution becomes worthless, because the people who are supposed to enforce it no longer believe in it.

[mise_en_place]

I think he took issue with your framing that democracy is interpreted. Judges don't interpret "democracy", that would be silly. Judges interpret the law.

I do agree with the general gist of the point you are making however. The Constitution itself holds no special power, it is the State's monopoly on violence that does.

[rayiner]

“Liberal democracy” is bullshit. It just means that liberalism always beats democracy.

[andix]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Edit: you can use a democratic process to kill off democracy. In the end democracy is dead, and it doesn't really matter anymore why.

[coliveira]

You're right, but that's a flaw of democracy itself. It is known since ancient Greece.

[amluto]

This:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/19/donald-trump-king-i...

doesn’t really sound like democracy.

[bruce511]

Democracy is not about what he does. It's all about how he comes to power.

In 4 years the people will vote again.

[hayst4ck]

Democracy isn't what you are, it's something you do. (Timothy Snyder's directly applicable talk on democracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY6LCOJbve8)

If you vote, but your votes don't matter, you aren't a democracy. You are a democracy when your votes meaningfully influence policy. In that sense, we aren't even a democracy right now.

It's worth considering that Russia has elections too. They aren't meaningful for many reasons. Real opposition candidates might be assassinated, or a candidate might be run with the same name to confuse voters, etc.

Gerrymandering and unlimited campaign contributions are prime example's of how "It's all about how he comes to power" is correct, but your conclusion is flawed.

Voting doesn't make you a democracy. Voting can be ritualized. Voting can be a form of cargo-culting (Feynman speech worth reading): https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

  "In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people.  During the war they 
  saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same 
  thing to happen now.  So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, 
  to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a 
  man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and 
  bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they 
  wait for the airplanes to land.  They’re doing everything right.  The 
  form is perfect.  It looks exactly the way it looked before.  But it 
  doesn’t work.  No airplanes land.  So I call these things Cargo Cult 
  Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of 
  scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, 
  because the planes don’t land."

America follows the apparent precepts and forms of democracy, but we are missing something essential because votes don't influence policy.

There is much more to the idea of democracy than voting.

[pstuart]

> In 4 years the people will vote again.

There's legitimate concern that won't be a viable option, and the admin has hinted that will soon be the case.

[kelnos]

Fortunately the federal government doesn't run or control elections, so the current administration doesn't really have a say here.

[devin]

Optimistic.

[bruce511]

I mean, to the degree in which I expect there to be an election in 2 years, and 4 years, I suppose that counts as optimism.

I've not seen any indication that elections themselves are under threat. Given that elections would happen at state level anyway (and absent disbandment of congress) those elections would elect senators and representatives. Which in turn have the power to remove a president.

So yes, I see nothing to suggest that elections themselves are at risk.

[andix]

That's just a prank. But it shows how little the president cares about democracy, or even monarchy.

[rurp]

> voters clearly approved of the concept of smaller, cheaper government. Which is basically what's happening.

Except that this is completely false. These haphazard cuts are a miniscule portion of the federal budget, even assuming they don't incur a whole bunch of second and third order costs. The exact same administration doing those is going to burn literal orders of magnitude more money on tax cuts for billionaires, border security theater, and other corrupt nonsense. Federal finances were in bad shape a year ago and are going to be absolutely horrid a few years from now.

[bruce511]

Oh, I agree, finances are going to be poor. But these departments cost a lot more than salaries, so firing everyone does save real coin.

And it plays very well with an electorate who wants to see "big changes". That thr changes will hurt them is the point missed by most.

Killing federal departments also plays well with those encumbered by red tape. If there's no CFB there's no one getting in my way to treat customers badly.

USaid buys (bought) a lot of food from US farmers , so in effect that subsidy is going away (without the bad press). The money "going to Ukraine" was being spent at US munition suppliers, so really, it'll hurt those suppliers.

[pstuart]

> they are doing is more-or-less what they campaigned on,

He campaigned on bringing prices down and exacting revenge. So far failing on the former and going strong on the latter.

This administration has made it clear that they think that the current President should have the power of a king, and the reign to match. We're in uncharted waters and there's rocks ahead.

[BLKNSLVR]

I mostly agree. Trump is behaving in a way that's consistent with his prior rhetoric.

Where I disagree is that there may have been an expectation that the systems outside of "The President" would have stood up for themselves more, offered more resistance and slowed him down more. The slow-moving of government is (was though to be) it's own protection to some extent.

[bruce511]

I'm not sure what evidence suggests that Republicans in congress would grow a spine to resist this. Conversely the evidence since 2016 suggests they actively applaud it.

The voters have voted out any congress people who resisted, sending a clear message that they want this path.

This may not be the pretty side of democracy, but it is democracy.

My point above (which I see is being downvoted) is not thst I see this as "good" , but rather that I see it as democratic. Everything going on is literally because the people voted for it. The stacking of the Supreme Court, the obstructionist behavior in congress, the tolerance for (Trump) crimes- this has all been rewarded, not penalized by voters.

If democracy is the will of the people , then what you see seeing is the power of that will.

[malcolmgreaves]

Except it’s not really democracy. You have gerrymandered districts. You elect a leader not by who gets the most votes, but who wins a system that was designed for the benefit of white slave owners.

And of course, who really believes the election results when you have Trump saying that Musk rigged some voting machines in his favor.

Face it, the US no longer creates its government from the collective will of its citizens. They’ve replaced politicians with corporate backers for the actual corporations themselves.

[bruce511]

I buy the gerrymandering concept at the congressional level.

But Trump won the popular vote. He increased his numbers in 90% of counties. He grew across all demographics.

This was not a structural failure. It was very clearly a country-wide mandate.

[scarface_74]

Trump specifically disavowed Project 2025 when he ran and now is embracing it. He never said he was going to put an unelected billionaire in charge and disregard the Constitution.

> And the lack of reaction by Republicans in congress suggests that they feel the best way to be reelected is to go along with it.

They are worried about getting primaried and their primary opponent being financed by Musk.

[bruce511]

He disavowed project 25, but it was written by all his inner circle, and he hired them into govt. So, if the voter believed him, well duh.

Musk was a big part of the inner circle before the election. His track record is well known.

In other words everything that is happening was predictable and predicted. Voters knew what they were voting for. Those who are surprised really weren't paying any attention.

[DFHippie]

> everything that is happening was predictable and predicted. Voters knew what they were voting for. Those who are surprised really weren't paying any attention.

The voters were kept away from these predictions. They were too spicy for mainstream media, not mainly because the media are in Trump's pocket (except Fox, OANN -- all the explicit propaganda outfits), but because people shoot the messenger when the messenger delivers bad news. They like hear about bad news afflicting other people. If it afflicts them, if it triggers their anxiety, they think, "You've made me feel bad. This is unpleasant. I'm going to go look at pictures of puppies and kittens."

[scarface_74]

Voters could not have known that Trump would make a concerted effort to do anything unconstitutional. This is nothing like he did his first term or any other Republican has ever done.

He is going after departments that are conservative darlings like the Defense department. I can’t remember any serious person saying we need to cut spending and fire people at the FAA.

If he had thought that voters wanted Project 2025, why would he disavow it during the campaign?

[kelnos]

> Voters could not have known that Trump would make a concerted effort to do anything unconstitutional

Trump literally said that he would be a dictator on day one. I heard tons of interviews with Republicans saying they'd be ok with Trump acting like a dictator.

Republican voters knew Trump would do unconstitutional things, and they liked it.

[alabastervlog]

> Voters could not have known that Trump would make a concerted effort to do anything unconstitutional.

They so very much could have.

These evil fucks can just say what they’re planning before they do it and you still get people going “how could anyone have known?” It’s incredible.

[_heimdall]

Wasn't Doge floated before the election, with Trump embracing the idea?

Regardless, Trump has made a living as a (slimy) business man. No one should have heard his campaign speeches and taken them at face value.

He didn't even have to be lying at the time, he could have simply changed his mind. The man seems to be driven only by two motivations: his family and making deals. The first one is often seen as admirable or honorable, the second means you'll do whatever it takes to negotiate a situation where you're better off by whatever metrics matter to you (usually money and status).

[BLKNSLVR]

Family is an interesting one, given five kids across three marriages, so the 'thought' is admirable and honourable, but he's unable to live up to it - which kind of educates us as to his ability to live up to his word, or his ability to deal with difficult situations calmly and rationally.

And having Musk alongside him entirely destroys the family angle (media-prop children aside).

[_heimdall]

That really depends on your view what the "right" setup for a family is. Historically that's a husband and wife with their kids, but that isn't the only approach by far.

My point there was only that he does seem to actually care about and love his family, especially (maybe mostly?) his kids.

[majormajor]

Trump specifically ran saying he didn't agree with many of these plans.

His actions are consistent with cheaper federal government but not smaller federal government. Just a centralized executive government that does what he says.

The method is simple: say what you need to to get approval, do what you always wanted to do after you get it.

See also Kennedy walking back his anti-vaccine positions to get crucial votes out of Republican senators in committee and then promptly revealing he is still anti-vax.

So when he makes comments about at third term and claiming even more power... how consistent do you think that is with smaller federal government or continuing democracy?

[bruce511]

Trump ran on saying whatever to whomever. his intentions though were obvious. He ran on cutting spending by 2 trillion. Where did people think this was going to come from? He ran on ending red tape. He ran on reducing regulation.

These days folk getting approved by the senate just have to show up. No one believes RFK when he says he's changed his mind on vax. I mean, these guys are lackeys, not stupid.

Democracy is about letting people who have no understanding, who pay minimal attention, who are easily led by media and populism, choose who should be in charge.

It is working as designed.

Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse.

If the population votes him a 3rd term, If they vote for congress who supports that- that is democracy. The people will get what they vote for.

We are literally seeing what "govt by the people" looks like. This is not democracy dying. It's democracy showing its flaws.

[xnx]

I'm not happy with the situation, but I agree with almost all of what you've said.

> Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse

I think there's a lot of room for improvement here. Eliminate the senate. Dramatically expand the house. Eliminate the electoral college. Sane district boundaries. Etc.

[transcriptase]

Perhaps the Democrats should consider letting their voters choose the candidate for once instead of anointing it. Nobody wanted Clinton except the DNC establishment, and then they lied about Biden until he was forced aside for Kamala at the behest of insiders.

[Braxton1980]

>Nobody wanted Clinton except the DNC establishment

Then why did she win at least 85% of nationwide polls in 2016 and 2015

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_f...

> Perhaps the Democrats should consider letting their voters choose the candidate

Maybe Biden didn't want to go and it took time and pressure. They couldn't put together a primary by the time he did.

Did they lie? Probably. If Biden didn't want to go saying "the president is senile" would have helped Trump win.

Either way it doesn't matter. Trump was the candidate who lied (and still is lying) about widespread election fraud, not to mention tons of other lies that have become so numerous I'm numb to them.

Voters had a choice, Trump or Harris. Which is better (or which is the least worst option)

[dylan604]

We're only one skipped election away from democratic death.

[kelnos]

How would you "skip" an election, though? Every single blue state and swing state will hold elections in 2026 and 2028. The federal government has no say in that.

If the red states don't feel like having elections, then I guess their legislatures will be directly appointing electors to send to the electoral college. Outcome will be the same, more or less, as if they held elections.

[dylan604]

Don’t care about state elections as that’s not the point. If someone that was currently in the last term of their Constitutionally limited position decided some sort of martial law that delayed/postponed/canceled an election that would replace them using their SCOTUS provided blanket immunity for official acts while the congressional branch refuse to impeach/convict, then there would not be an election. Anything the states did wouldn’t matter as the complicit congress would just choose to not recognize anything the states did.

It might seem like a bizarre thing to say about the USofA, but we were not far from not certifying the previous election with an opposition led congress.

[rayiner]

This is democracy! You can say it’s a bad idea or whatever. But Trump had Musk on stage promising to do this then we elected him. That’s democracy. Tyranny of the majority.

Also people like it: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/HHP... (pp. 29-32)

[watwut]

Democracy involves rule of law.

[rayiner]

In a sense, but not in the sense of all the political branches having to run every decision by lawyers and judges.

[selimthegrim]

So judicial review is out too?

[panta]

There have been electoral fraud and a massive disinformation campaign operated by a foreign country. This is not democracy.

[insane_dreamer]

"America First" strategy turns out to be "American Second". (I guarantee you that China will not be idle, and will do everything in its power to fill the void. Whether it succeeds remains to be seen, but it has the best chance it's ever had.)

[anal_reactor]

> It's a helluva vacuum being created, and I'm not particularly optimistic about what's going to fill it.

The biggest asset of the US was that it was a trustworthy business partner. US would fuck you over, but in 90% of cases within the limits of law. Dollar is the world's currency because long-term, it's the most stable currency. And so on.

I think that only Europe has the established institutions to replace the US. Yes, China is powerful, but China is not trustworthy enough to make long-term deals with. Yes, Europe is a much worse option than the US, but it's the second-best thing. Now, if Europe also falls to authoritarianism, then modern world as we know it will end.

[alfiedotwtf]

> We're looking at the US wilfully letting go of the possibility of remaining the most powerful nation in the world.

It’s not hard to understand why people believe Trump Is a Russian asset

[acdha]

Yes - we don’t have proof that he is, but looking at things like the way he’s handling the Russian invasion of Ukraine makes it a fair question to ask whether it would be any different if he was.

I’ve had a similar debate over the DOGE effort to install political commissars throughout the executive branch. There’s one alarm about how skipping a lot of safeguards would make it easier for an adversary to get inside (either by compromising one of their people or relying on the defense being so disrupted) but there seems to be an equally strong argument that a foreign intelligence agency might choose to stay out because nothing they could do would harm U.S. interests more and getting caught might trigger a strong enough reaction to halt the damage.

[alfiedotwtf]

> we don’t have proof that he is

Sorry, I wrote that thinking that everyone know about his financiers. Trump’s business and personal loans aren’t from Americans banks… I’ll give you one try to guess which country they come from!

[groby_b]

This is not "letting go", this is "deliberately giving away and dismantling".

Nobody is that incompetent to do this accidentally.

[trhway]

>We're looking at the US wilfully letting go of the possibiility of remaining the most powerful nation in the world.

many here see it way (me too, though i'm well aware that many times whenever i was critical of Musk, he happened to be right, and in this case - Musk is naturally not anti-science guy, so i'd guess there must be some other reason for him doing that which i'm just not able to see).

I wonder whether somebody from the opposing side can provide a reasonable logical explanation for the Musk/Trump actions. In particular what is the expected state near, mid, and longterm and how the current actions are supposed to result in it. It would be great to have it with some ballpark estimates.

[20after4]

Their actions are pretty clearly to consolidate power, replace everyone with loyalists, cut taxes on the rich, deport and depopulate the country and transfer assets to their associates. Once the economy is tanked they can go on a buying spree and pick up all sorts of private assets for bargain price.

[cancerhacker]

I keep thinking about musks group having all this financial data (that his business competitors do not!) and feeding it into a model to find signal he can use to further his empire / investments. I also see his stated intention to make the “one app to rule them all” (for govt ID, banking, etc) as another route to the same data. His payments to / cleaving to trump really accelerated his underlying goal.

[majormajor]

Musk is interested in money and power. Not science.

His interest in money has led him to beliefs that he gets the most money if he cuts as aggressively as possible and pushes others to do as much as they can for as little as they will take. "Efficiency" to protect him from things like taxes or regulation, at the expense of anyone else's desire to not be cut to the bone.

And he's getting power by making a trade - he gets Republican approval by cutting a Federal workforce that right-wingers have long complained about. In exchange they give him power. So even if those cuts don't make a material dent on the national budget or debt, he'll have taken advantage of that power to make a few specific actions to benefit him personally.

Look at the difference between how he talks about space and how NASA does, say. Mars? Not science, not research, but just a place to plant a colony beholden to him that he can tax (without using those words) as much as he wants.

[throwawaymaths]

> I wonder whether somebody from the opposing side can provide a reasonable logical explanation for the Musk/Trump actions.

i am not on trump's side (i hate trump; i am neutral on musk except these past few weeks i think he's said -- but not yet really done -- things that are a bit beyond the pale, even for him) but i think this will be positive for American science.

as i posted in sibling comment:

> to steelman the issue: what if there was overinvestment in science? as in we chased money after talent that didnt exist, or was mismatched to the difficulty of the available and fundable open questions.

two things: you'd expect a lot of fraud and misallocated science to have been recently uncovered (Reproducibility crisis, amyloid hypothesis scandals e.g.).

after the cuts, you would expect the quantity of science to go down, but the quality to go up.

i guess technically this isn't a logocal explanation since i dont think trump is doing this in good faith but i think the US might be better off in the end.

[frozenport]

No because these cuts do nothing to address fraud.

In the immediate it seems to have cut short the next generation of scientists leaving more of the entrenched old hands.

[throwawaymaths]

im not arguing intent, I'm arguing effect. the effect depends on how bad the rot is. the existing system is so bad it seems incapable of self-policing (tessier-lavigne was exposed by an undergraduate journalism major, not a fellow scientist). maybe it's time to start over, any 'partial' solution will have a hell of a time figuring out who to cut and who to keep.

[bruce511]

Musk's motivations are simple; the rich have been promised tax breaks, which means deep spending cuts. So gutting the parks service means no parks open to the public, but balances a tax break to billionaires.

Same for "science". That's a long term investment with long term returns. Kill that now for immediate tax breaks. Let someone else worry about the fallout 10 years from now.

Then there's direct interest. The CFB regulates companies processing payments to protect consumers. X wants to process payments without that pesky oversight. CFB is gone.

Musk and Trump sell this to the masses as saving money. Which the masses assume means lower taxes for them. Whereas the billionaires understand it's to remove services from the masses to route more money to themselves. The masses are easily duped - this is literally democracy in action.

[jfengel]

In 2016 they had tax breaks without spending cuts. And he's not actually saving all that much money. The employees are only a small part of the budget.

He's doing it because hate for government employees has been a talking point since Reagan. He's getting huge accolades for sticking it to the evildoers. It's popular and fun.

[trhway]

that is the question - for example SpaceX needs FAA permits. With the federal employees severely cut in that future that Musk/Trump builds how that will be solved - 1. no FAA permits required or 2. SpaceX gets same-day service (or even total blanket exception) while everybody else waits 3 years?

[vel0city]

> So gutting the parks service means no parks open to the public, but balances a tax break to billionaires

That's the stupid thing in the end. Gut the parks service, here's your $500 tax break on your several hundred million+ income.

[bruce511]

It's a lot more than $500. For the few. It's $0 for the masses. A 1% reduction in corporate tax means millions in their pockets.

Billionaires aren't the ones going to national parks. So they don't care if they're closed.

[_heimdall]

Well I'm not from "the other side" as I don't align with either party, but I do live in a very red part of the country.

In the short term, as I understand it, the goal is to root out fraud and abuse. For decades many people from both sides of the aisle have believed the government wastes money, that is nothing new. The current moves somewhat rhyme with the early Clinton administration. Whether that is Trump's goal or not is largely speculative, but those I've talked to that support him see this as the goal.

The mid and long term goals vary wildly depending on who I talk to. Some still view it like old school republicans, small government and states' rights. Others want a government just as large and powerful as today but focused on different goals and moral views.

The question I've yet to hear raised or disavowed by the Trump supporters I know is whether this is leading to fascism. A supposed billionaire running the country with his billionaire friends in toe sure seems like industry take over of government.

Similarly though, I rarely heard the other side of the aisle acknowledging whether the other path was intentionally leading to Marxism - a similar number of parallels existed there as well and in either case the outcome is authoritarianism and massive federal powers.

[watwut]

This has zero to do with rooting put fraud, this is literally making goverment more corrupt.

And the whole "democrats are Marxists" talking point is ridiculous. There are no paralels here, just a authoritarian and anti democratic movement successfully demonizing other side regardless of truth.

[_heimdall]

You're being too black and white here in my opinion.

From what I've seen we don't yet have a clear vision of what their end goals really are. They've talked about waste and fraud, and what they've done so far could be to that end. Going out a layer and you find people around them, and Project 2025, that seem to talk much more towards privatizing the government. I haven't seen enough to know which way it will go, but its been moving so quickly that I can't keep up with everything.

I didn't say "democrats are Marxists" and I didn't intend to imply that. To say there are no parallels is disingenuous at best. Wealth distribution is a great example that is common in both groups, as is anticapitalist and anti-meritocratic views and policies.

That doesn't mean democrats are Marxists or that the party is Marxist. It does, though, mean that there are policies many Democratic voters or politicians support that align with arguments Marx made (and that doesn't inherently mean the ideas are bad ones).

[crusty]

If you are a person who thinks diversity, equity, and inclusion are by definition determinants or waste, fraud, and abuse, then sure, you aren't going to see this as something totally different. So when Trump threatens to disrupt and destroy funding streams to agencies and institutions merely for referencing or addressing those things, i guess that's just part of the government being efficient.

Waste, fraud, and abuse are completely subjective and at this point arbitrary terms to a guy who thinks Putin is aces, calls Zelynsk is a dictator, and claims Ukraine stayed the War with the country that invaded them... twice. If he's unwilling to recognize a shared reality and set of objective truths with us, how would we not be complete idiots to believe his version of waste, fraud, and abuse comes straight from the upside-down and its real value is as a catchphrase that capitalizes on people's preconceptions of the government.

[watwut]

1.) If you did not seem enough, it is because you was avoiding it. Project 2024 also literally describes much more then just privatization.

The goals of conservative movements were always visible and open, alteought enablers preferred to demand everyone uses euphemisms.

2 ) You did used those words. You knew it was exaggeration and even now you are exaggerating. Plus even milder claim is purely false. You got what you wanted politically, so this strategy of false equivalencies, of blaming democrats of what conservatives do and plan to do is getting really hollow.

Bo sides were not the same, you just create such impression by using euphemisms for one side and exaggerations for another one.

3.) No one on the right has any business to use the word meritocracy. They never wanted ine, occasionally using that word to manipulate. Right now, qualified woman amd black man were removed from leadership position amd replaced by mediocre unqualified man.

Right now, qualified people are replaced by unqualified loyalists.

[_heimdall]

You're still being too black and white here.

I live in a mostly red/republican state. I don't know anyone who had actually read Project 2025 or could tell me what's in it. For sure it shows the intentions of those who wrote it, but you are generalizing far too much by saying it makes clear the motivations of a broader conservative movement.

> Similarly though, I rarely heard the other side of the aisle acknowledging whether the other path was intentionally leading to Marxism - a similar number of parallels existed there as well and in either case the outcome is authoritarianism and massive federal powers.

This is an exact quote from my earlier comment so we aren't out of context here. I did not use the words "democrats are Marxists." I do raise the potential that some Democratic policies lead towards a Marxist end, but in no way does that say they are Marxist or prescribe an opinion of the entire party or voting block.

What euphemisms are you claiming I made earlier? Some context there would help, I was trying to give clear examples and make direct statements but maybe I didn't do that well

> No one on the right has any business to use the word meritocracy.

Well I'm not on the right or claiming what the right (or Republicans if that's what you mean) can or can't say. I agree that at a minimum the Republican platform right now is pretty contradictory with regards to merit and that's a problem. That again wasn't my point though - I was making the claim that some Democratic voters and politicians support are opposed to meritocracy and that view aligns with Marxist writings. Are you disagreeing with me there, or just wanting to deflect to what the Republicans are doing?

[malcolmgreaves]

The Democratic Party is about as far away as you can get from any sort of Marxist political ideology as you can. There’s not a single even minor US political movement that is even remotely related to Marxism.

[_heimdall]

That seems like a hard claim to stand behind when Harris's father was a Marxist economist. BLM was also a very popular movement among the Democratic party, and it was organized and run by Marxists.

How do you land on the party being as far from Marxism as a party can be?

[dashundchen]

What Marxist policies was Harris promoting?

Elon Musk's parents and grandparents were adovactes and beneficiaries of a violent, racist apartheid South Africa. His dad had children with his step-daughter.

Fred Trump was arrested for participating in a KKK rally and prosecuted for racist discriminatiory housing practices.

How do you land on Trump and Musk being far from violent ugly racism?

[_heimdall]

> The Democratic Party is about as far away as you can get from any sort of Marxist political ideology as you can.

The last comment or set the bar pretty high here. Many of Harris's policy ideas were more focused on the collective well-being than the individual, all of those are more Marxist than they could be.

I'm not sure why you're jumping to Musk or Trump comparisons here. I agree with you in some areas that they both may be dangerous, that just wasn't the topic here.

[throw939449]

> opposing side can provide a reasonable logical explanation for the Musk/Trump actions

Maybe it is like with Mozilla. You send money to Firefox development, but it pays for Marxist get-away conference in Africa.

Once academia gets rid of bloat, there will be far more money for science and engineering!

[watwut]

They slashed grants that pay science. Science ia going to be cut.

[bcrl]

Science has this pesky problem of generating facts. Where we're going, we don't need facts!

[btilly]

Trump I have no explanation for except corruption.

But Musk and DOGE, there is a simple explanation. Musk has learned that you take a chainsaw to sacred cows, then fix the 10% that were really bad mistakes, and that is the easiest way to cut through bureaucracy. So he's trying that, at scale.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem like he'll notice most of his bad mistakes. Because it is at scale, and his attention doesn't go that far.

[MyOutfitIsVague]

Yeah, this slash and burn approach is legitimately good in many circumstances. You cut through cruft, break down old unneeded processes, and things that are needed but were undocumented become quickly documented and maybe refurbished. Things that break are quickly noticed and reinstated.

It really doesn't work for huge complex systems where the breakages aren't felt fully for many years, and building the systems back up take decades, and things break so far down the line that it's impossible to even tell what needs to be fixed.

I have to hope that the intentions are actually good, because the appearances from the outside look a lot like the start of a dictatorship.

[cancerhacker]

When you’re refactoring a system (which is really what he’s claiming to want to do) you don’t just delete the repository and start with main(). You figure out where the edges are, how they fit together, where are the Chesterton Fences and how can we protect them until they’re understood. A/B unit testing.

This takes a non-zero amount of time and it takes careful consideration by subject experts.

I can’t really speak to your hopefulness of good intentions - as a parent that relies on government agencies to help my special needs child with the tools she needs, I see no hope here.

What does success look like? How long should the chaos and pain last before you’re beyond hope? Will there be remuneration for people that are materially hurt by this scorched earth policy? How will you be hurt, personally?

[MyOutfitIsVague]

I generally agree with you, but I have worked with many balls of mud that actually can not be understood even with experts and research without an unreasonable amount of time. Things like a program that runs in a database that was bought from a vendor that has since gone out of business, and the program ostensibly formats some rows and puts them into another table, but we don't know and can't know if anything else is actually using it because observability is not a part of this product, and we can't reach anybody who actually was involved in making it or setting it up. In these cases, a scream test is easier, faster, and more effective than "proper" research. And nearly the entire system is built on these inscrutable processes that nobody understands.

Sometimes it involves people, too. I did consulting work at a company that maintained an entire department of dozens of people who did nothing but mechanically opened spreadsheets that were dropped into a share, copied a specific set of rows from them into another spreadsheet, and then copied that spreadsheet into another share. It turned out the entire process was redundant, because what it was built to temporarily fix had already been permanently fixed elsewhere, and they still kept growing this useless department for years. Happily, the majority of these people were reassigned rather than fired.

For a collection agency, breaking these things is temporary pain. For a government, it can be deadly for constituents.

> I can’t really speak to your hopefulness of good intentions - as a parent that relies on government agencies to help my special needs child with the tools she needs, I see no hope here.

I am really sorry to hear that. It's not a good position to be in. I have a trans child myself, and I am also worried about being able to care for them in an environment that is increasingly hostile. I've spent weeks of this past month depressed and panicked over the current "governance". I'm just trying to cope, and sometimes that involves a bit of denial.

> What does success look like?

Don't get me wrong here. No success is possible. If their intentions are good, they're still destroying things that will kill people and take decades to repair. There will likely be no remuneration. I'm just hoping for the outcome that is least bad. I have zero hope of anything good resulting.

[cancerhacker]

Thank you for the thoughtful response- and best of luck to you and your child.