5 ms·

I think it is great that the DOJ is finally interested in breaking monopolies but unfortunately a lot of these cases are going to be pending the election. Depen

I think it is great that the DOJ is finally interested in breaking monopolies but unfortunately a lot of these cases are going to be pending the election. Depending on who wins there is a high chance we see all antitrust action die. And let me be very blunt so people aren't confused, I think if Trump wins, the people he installs in the DOJ will be less than motivated in pursuing these cases.

sapphicsnail 2y ago
I think this could happen even if Harris wins. There are a lot of big donors to her campaign that want Lina Khan out.
- alaxhn 2y ago
  I'm not completely convinced Lina Khan would be out if Trump wins. JD Vance has mentioned support for her by name on several occasions.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > JD Vance has mentioned support for her by name on several occasions JD Vance has approximately as much policy control in a Trump administration as Kamala Harris would.
    - skissane 2y ago
      > JD Vance has approximately as much policy control in a Trump administration as Kamala Harris would. VPs don’t have “policy control” but they do have access to the President and the opportunity to influence them. If Trump wins, Vance will be meeting with Trump regularly, and have the opportunity to try to talk Trump into things - I doubt Vance will always succeed, but he probably will sometimes. Whereas a defeated Harris won’t be meeting Trump regularly and so will lack the same opportunity.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Vance will be meeting with Trump regularly This varies from administration to administration. On the economic portfolio, there is zero indication Vance has remit. (From what I can tell, zero involvement in cabinet decisions, for example.)
        skissane 2y ago
        > From what I can tell, zero involvement in cabinet decisions, for example. The VP is ex officio a member of the Cabinet of the United States, as as such is involved in "cabinet decisions". (Strictly speaking the US Cabinet, unlike the Cabinet in Commonwealth countries, doesn't actually make decisions, it just recommends decisions to the President, who can either accept the Cabinet's recommendation or choose to overrule it.) While originally the US Cabinet did not include the VP – George Washington was under the belief the VP was a member of the legislative rather than executive branch, due to the VP's role as President of the Senate, and as such did not belong in the Cabinet, hence he excluded John Adams – by the 20th century it became standard practice for VPs to be included in the Cabinet. Every Cabinet in recent decades has included the VP. Pence as VP was part of Trump's Cabinet, just as Harris as VP is a member of Biden's. Now, the Cabinet is just a tradition, it is not established or required by law or the Constitution – so any President could at any time abolish it, or alter its membership. If Trump wins, there would be nothing legally stopping him from breaking with tradition and excluding Vance from his Cabinet. But I'm not aware of any concrete evidence suggesting Trump will actually do that. The VP has a high level of access to the President, independently from being the most senior member of Cabinet (the President is not technically a member). Of course, the VP doesn't have the legal right to meet with the President, so if a President comes to dislike a VP, they have the right to freeze the VP out and refuse to meet with them. But again, no reason at present to suspect Trump would do that to Vance if Trump wins. On the contrary, Trump (not without reason) views Vance as a "mini-me", and as such may be more likely to listen to him than to other potential advisors. Many critics accuse Vance of sycophancy, but for Trump that's less a criticism and more of a positive.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
- snackjack_38294 2y ago
  [dead]
Sysreq2 2y ago
I don’t think the modern Democratic Party the same pro-worker, anti-corporate greed version a lot of us grew up with. Don’t take this as an endorsement for Trump mind you. Hardly. Democrats still have basic human rights on their side. Corporate greed and military spending aren’t up for debate though. We can bicker about guns and immigration policy all we want but some topics aren’t even on the table for discussion.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  To a degree you are right, but fully agreeing with this is ignoring reality given the thread we are commenting in. There has been more antitrust legislation under the current administration than there has been in a decade so while they aren't the Dems of old, I feel we are heading in a good direction.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  There are several different caucuses within the Democratic Party. Some of them are the pro-corporate types you're referring to. But there is also a Progressive caucus that is pretty pro-worker pro-tax that I think you're missing out on.
  - Sysreq2 2y ago
    So it’s funny you mention that. I actually think Marx made a fantastic critique of capitalism. He kind of nailed the inherent flaws within the system. I compare his solutions to someone predicting that every desk would eventually have a telegraph through. Identifying a problem doesn’t therefor imply a solution. Regarding the modern Progressive movement though, I find them a bit too authoritarian for my tastes. There are countless examples but classic Western liberalism is at odds with their ideology. They’ve fallen into the classic revolutionary entrapment of their own power being tied with continued upheaval. If you are not with them completely then you are the enemy. From the Google Manifesto to JK Rowling’s cancelling, they remind me of the mob during the French Revolution. They just eat their own and refuse to accept any kind of meaningful critique. Liberalism requires debate, disagreement and questioning the status quo. I don’t see that amongst the modern Progressives. They would rather burn it down than build something better. Ironically, I fear them gaining power as much as I do the religious right. Neither contains the capacity for building the coalitions needed for stable governance. I like moderates. Stability. Peace. Compromise. Mutual Respect. Empathy. I just don’t see those values in those circles. Now that I’ve politely disagreed, I suppose it’s just a matter of time before someone comes along to insult me and prove my point.
throwway120385 2y ago
It's not just the political appointees. One pillar of Project 2025 is that OMB will make a rule by which almost any employee of any executive agency can be ruled a "political appointee" and fired and replaced by the president at any time.
- refurb 2y ago
  Aren’t the regulatory agencies all under the executive function? Isn’t the President the head of the executive? That seems entirely reasonable. I find it interesting that HN posts so many article about how the intelligence agencies are “loose canons”. A big part of that are the tens of thousands of employees that never change when the President does. Seems like a great idea that a new President could clean house.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    High ranking officials of the executive government should be in office until the next election and only if the next president also wants them should they get their job back. These people have a lot of power and voters should have power over them in turn.
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    Being able to fire a scientist at the NWS because you disagree with their scientific findings shouldn't be allowed. Organizations like NASA, NOAA, et. al. were chartered to render findings of scientific fact and replacing people because you disagree with the scientific truth or their expertise is going to completely destroy those institutions.

sapphicsnail 2y ago

I think this could happen even if Harris wins. There are a lot of big donors to her campaign that want Lina Khan out.

alaxhn 2y ago
I'm not completely convinced Lina Khan would be out if Trump wins. JD Vance has mentioned support for her by name on several occasions.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > JD Vance has mentioned support for her by name on several occasions JD Vance has approximately as much policy control in a Trump administration as Kamala Harris would.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > JD Vance has approximately as much policy control in a Trump administration as Kamala Harris would. VPs don’t have “policy control” but they do have access to the President and the opportunity to influence them. If Trump wins, Vance will be meeting with Trump regularly, and have the opportunity to try to talk Trump into things - I doubt Vance will always succeed, but he probably will sometimes. Whereas a defeated Harris won’t be meeting Trump regularly and so will lack the same opportunity.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Vance will be meeting with Trump regularly This varies from administration to administration. On the economic portfolio, there is zero indication Vance has remit. (From what I can tell, zero involvement in cabinet decisions, for example.)
      - skissane 2y ago
        > From what I can tell, zero involvement in cabinet decisions, for example. The VP is ex officio a member of the Cabinet of the United States, as as such is involved in "cabinet decisions". (Strictly speaking the US Cabinet, unlike the Cabinet in Commonwealth countries, doesn't actually make decisions, it just recommends decisions to the President, who can either accept the Cabinet's recommendation or choose to overrule it.) While originally the US Cabinet did not include the VP – George Washington was under the belief the VP was a member of the legislative rather than executive branch, due to the VP's role as President of the Senate, and as such did not belong in the Cabinet, hence he excluded John Adams – by the 20th century it became standard practice for VPs to be included in the Cabinet. Every Cabinet in recent decades has included the VP. Pence as VP was part of Trump's Cabinet, just as Harris as VP is a member of Biden's. Now, the Cabinet is just a tradition, it is not established or required by law or the Constitution – so any President could at any time abolish it, or alter its membership. If Trump wins, there would be nothing legally stopping him from breaking with tradition and excluding Vance from his Cabinet. But I'm not aware of any concrete evidence suggesting Trump will actually do that. The VP has a high level of access to the President, independently from being the most senior member of Cabinet (the President is not technically a member). Of course, the VP doesn't have the legal right to meet with the President, so if a President comes to dislike a VP, they have the right to freeze the VP out and refuse to meet with them. But again, no reason at present to suspect Trump would do that to Vance if Trump wins. On the contrary, Trump (not without reason) views Vance as a "mini-me", and as such may be more likely to listen to him than to other potential advisors. Many critics accuse Vance of sycophancy, but for Trump that's less a criticism and more of a positive.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
snackjack_38294 2y ago
[dead]

Sysreq2 2y ago

I don’t think the modern Democratic Party the same pro-worker, anti-corporate greed version a lot of us grew up with. Don’t take this as an endorsement for Trump mind you. Hardly. Democrats still have basic human rights on their side. Corporate greed and military spending aren’t up for debate though. We can bicker about guns and immigration policy all we want but some topics aren’t even on the table for discussion.

BadHumans 2y ago
To a degree you are right, but fully agreeing with this is ignoring reality given the thread we are commenting in. There has been more antitrust legislation under the current administration than there has been in a decade so while they aren't the Dems of old, I feel we are heading in a good direction.
throwway120385 2y ago
There are several different caucuses within the Democratic Party. Some of them are the pro-corporate types you're referring to. But there is also a Progressive caucus that is pretty pro-worker pro-tax that I think you're missing out on.
- Sysreq2 2y ago
  So it’s funny you mention that. I actually think Marx made a fantastic critique of capitalism. He kind of nailed the inherent flaws within the system. I compare his solutions to someone predicting that every desk would eventually have a telegraph through. Identifying a problem doesn’t therefor imply a solution. Regarding the modern Progressive movement though, I find them a bit too authoritarian for my tastes. There are countless examples but classic Western liberalism is at odds with their ideology. They’ve fallen into the classic revolutionary entrapment of their own power being tied with continued upheaval. If you are not with them completely then you are the enemy. From the Google Manifesto to JK Rowling’s cancelling, they remind me of the mob during the French Revolution. They just eat their own and refuse to accept any kind of meaningful critique. Liberalism requires debate, disagreement and questioning the status quo. I don’t see that amongst the modern Progressives. They would rather burn it down than build something better. Ironically, I fear them gaining power as much as I do the religious right. Neither contains the capacity for building the coalitions needed for stable governance. I like moderates. Stability. Peace. Compromise. Mutual Respect. Empathy. I just don’t see those values in those circles. Now that I’ve politely disagreed, I suppose it’s just a matter of time before someone comes along to insult me and prove my point.

throwway120385 2y ago

It's not just the political appointees. One pillar of Project 2025 is that OMB will make a rule by which almost any employee of any executive agency can be ruled a "political appointee" and fired and replaced by the president at any time.

refurb 2y ago
Aren’t the regulatory agencies all under the executive function? Isn’t the President the head of the executive? That seems entirely reasonable. I find it interesting that HN posts so many article about how the intelligence agencies are “loose canons”. A big part of that are the tens of thousands of employees that never change when the President does. Seems like a great idea that a new President could clean house.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  High ranking officials of the executive government should be in office until the next election and only if the next president also wants them should they get their job back. These people have a lot of power and voters should have power over them in turn.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  Being able to fire a scientist at the NWS because you disagree with their scientific findings shouldn't be allowed. Organizations like NASA, NOAA, et. al. were chartered to render findings of scientific fact and replacing people because you disagree with the scientific truth or their expertise is going to completely destroy those institutions.