8 ms·

> On his personal Substack, he wrote an essay titled “Why I gave up a seven-figure salary to save America,” according to press reports, and described failed U.S

> On his personal Substack, he wrote an essay titled “Why I gave up a seven-figure salary to save America,” according to press reports, and described failed U.S. attorney general nominee Matt Gaetz, who withdrew from Congress amid allegations of sexual misconduct, as a “victim” of the deep state. The fact that nobody is stopping these people is the clearest evidence anyone needs that there's no such thing as "the deep state". But they're actively trying to create one. I'm incredibly depressed and disillusioned to see fellow software engineers drinking the Kool-aid so deeply while they dismantle the US federal government. I've learned the hard way that many people in this country do NOT actually care about democracy. At all. I used to believe that most everyone agreed that democracy was good, and we just disagreed on policy. I no longer believe that.

SoftTalker 2y ago
Most people drink kool-aid. It's just a matter of whether it's blue or red.
monero-xmr 2y ago
[flagged]
- tomrod 2y ago
  Trump is ignoring laws. Canning USAID is a great example. Ignoring background check processes is another.
  - ctrlp 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - genter 2y ago
      The part of the constitution that says only Congress can create laws and the president just implements them.
      - nsonha 2y ago
        He didn't create any law in this matter and he used a legal path way, executive orders. Do cry about the broken system.
        tomrod 2y ago
        No, he is closing down an agency using Executive Orders; however, as currently constituted, only Congress can shut down the agency. > The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency. In a section titled “Status of AID” (22 U.S.C. 6563) it states: >> (a) In general >> Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. Because the agency is an independent agency, it cannot be interrupted without going through the appropriate channel. [0] https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-usaid-by-executive-order/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-u...
    - tomrod 2y ago
      https://thehill.com/policy/international/foreign-aid/5123972-lawmakers-legal-experts-warn-shuttering-usaid-is-unconstitutional/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/foreign-aid/5123972...
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - motorest 2y ago
      > OK, we have an independent judiciary to decide on the legality. You don't. > Just because you say it's illegal doesn't mean it is. It's illegal to the point it even violates the US constitution. > Biden unilaterally cancelled a trillion dollars of college debt, which the Supreme Court said was illegal, (...) The Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Education didn't had the authority to enact such a large program and needed to seek approval from congress, and the rule was called by Trump's appointees. Biden's student loan debt programs still went ahead because, unlike the original claim, the department of education already was running student debt forgiveness programs before and during Trump's first term, and those existing programs were never questioned as being illegal or unconstitutional. The fact that you are trying to compare this event to Trump's string of illegal and unconstitutional efforts to shut down and dismantle the whole federal government, not to mention the whole sabotage campaign involving threatening long-standing allies of military invasion and economic war, speaks volumes of how disingenuous you're being.
      - tomrod 2y ago
        And what's even worse, the person you replied to may lot even realize how disingenuous they are being. This is the level of propaganda that is tearing through the US.
    - galangalalgol 2y ago
      But the DOJ replied to that independent judiciary that was not bound by their decision... It wasn't appealed to a supreme court that would likely overrule the lower court, it was simply asserted that the judges order didn't matter. That is the sort of thing I find concerning. Firing non appointed law enforcement officers without stated cause too. If you walk down the autocratic playbook for the rise to power, there are way too many parallels for comfort. Ask chatgpt to provide them along with relevant quotes from well known autocrats. Some of the judicial orders do seem to be getting followed now, I have some bit of hope that the supreme court won't do anything too obviously biased.
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tomrod 2y ago
      > The access that DOGE and Elon has is strictly legal via standard government processes. Nope, you are mistaken. The EO gave access for DOGE and unclassified systems. Treasury has quite a bit that is classified. This is why the lawsuits to stop them have merit. https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-and-directives/treasury-directive-15-72 https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-a...
      - jandrewrogers 2y ago
        [flagged]
        tomrod 2y ago
        Cite the regs. Cure what you feel is inaccurate.
        jandrewrogers 2y ago
        This isn’t a serious request. The ability of authorities to grant arbitrary people access to classified information has been the law of the land forever. If you are unfamiliar with this then you are not in a position to make a credible argument. I am not going to play a game of “fetch a rock” with someone incapable of cursory research. This is my world, I know how it works.
        btreecat 2y ago
        > This is my world, I know how it works. "Trust me bro"
        tomrod 2y ago
        Where you have made your claim isn't 'your world,' it's the open web. You may or may not spend any time at all, but taking people at their word was ruined by 4chan and other trolls. Since I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I actually chatted about my questions with people who operate in the space, let me add more information to the conversation. First, governing documents: Executive Order 13526 - Governs classification of national security information, including Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential levels. - Who Can Override? President - Override Process: The President can declassify or reclassify any classified information at will. Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) - Controls handling of classified information in legal proceedings. - Who Can Override? Federal Courts (Judges) - Override Process: Judges can determine whether classified evidence can be disclosed in court. National Industrial Security Program (NISP) (Executive Order 12829) - Regulates access to classified information by contractors and private entities. - Who Can Override? President, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) - Override Process: The President can issue waivers; DCSA can grant or deny access based on security clearances. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - Regulates intelligence gathering on foreign entities and individuals. - Who Can Override? FISA Court (FISC) - Override Process: Judges can approve or disapprove classified surveillance requests. Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 - Governs access to classified nuclear information ("Restricted Data"). - Who Can Override? President, Department of Energy (DOE), Congress - Override Process: The President and DOE can declassify certain nuclear information. Congress can pass legislation altering classification. Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 - Regulates access to presidential records, including classified materials. - Who Can Override? Incumbent President - Override Process: The sitting President can restrict or release prior administration records. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - Allows public access to government records but exempts classified materials. - Who Can Override? Agencies, Courts, President - Override Process: Agencies can deny requests, courts can order disclosure, and the President can override agency decisions. Department of Defense (DoD) Information Security Program (DoDM 5200.01) - Regulates access to military and defense-related classified information. - Who Can Override? Secretary of Defense, President - Override Process: The Secretary of Defense can restrict access within DoD, and the President can override classifications. While a President could certainly grant access to classified (and sensitive) systems, there are still laws that prevent hostile takeovers like what Elon Musk and DOGE have done (which, you recall, were explicitly given access by executive order to unclassified systems). The laws, acts, and regs I would have expected you to cite include: - FISMA (2014) - CISA (2015) - EO 13800 - Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (2004) - CFAA (Title 18, USC Sec.1030) Can the president override these restrictions? Not directly -- while the prez has authority over classified information and executive agencies, federal laws explicitly prohibit unauthorized access to IT systems, even by high-ranking officials such as DOGE. IT systems within agencies like the Treasury, OPM, and USAID operate under internal security policies and congressional oversight. A president attempting wholesale access to these systems without proper legal justification can lead to legal challenges (as it has), congressional investigations, and potential violations of federal law. Some of the policies in these agencies, based on decades of experience in securing the systems, are - DoD Instruction 8500.01 (Cybersecurity) - established RBAC and principle of least privillege - DoD Instruction 8530.01 (Cybersecurity Activities Support to DoD Information Network Operations) -- monitoring of privileged users - Army Regulation (AR) 25-2 (Army Cybersecurity) - MFA requirements -- Army specific, but similar regs at other agencies. Now, what if someone with authority grants unauthorized access? You're talking espionage act now. CFAA too. Privacy act. Insider threat (EO 13587). Granting unauthorized access to federal IT systems, classified data, or sensitive records is a serious crime. If national security is compromised, penalties become even harsher under espionage laws. Now, if you're actually in this world, I welcome your substantive additions to the conversation.
  - afpx 2y ago
    It’ll be handled by the courts then, right? Personally, I like the bold approach. I really dislike Trump and would never ever consider voting for the guy. This isn’t the outcome that I hoped for, but I appreciate that he’s trying to do something at least, even if it fails. Only 34% of Americans trust the government for a lot of valid reasons. We’ve been at war for pretty much forever. We keep innerworkings of government secret for ‘national security’. And, I have never liked how we influence elections and governments around the world. It always felt so gross. I’ve done work with USAID and have seen first hand their ineffective humanitarian aid programs. It’s not surprising that they haven’t made much progress in over 50 years when you consider the perverse incentives.
- ctrlp 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rdtsc 2y ago
    Pretty much. Person asks "how did Americans allow this?". Someone responds and get downvoted and flagged to hell. Funny enough, that also models the reason why people are in shock? "How could this happen, all the posts, media, and polls I saw were predicting a Harris win? Was it the Russians? The aliens?". Yet here someone responding honestly, and they get downvoted to hell and disappear. Next cycle it will be the same, "how could this happen, everything I read and everyone I asked all agreed with ... and then ..."
    - tomrod 2y ago
      Oh please. Good faith requires facts, which this current administration does not use. Or perhaps you'd be surprised to learn they aren't eating pets in Springfield?
      - rdtsc 2y ago
        > Oh please. Oh sure, anytime > Good faith requires facts, which this current administration does not use. I don't know, the OP (or GP?) post said they were wanted to continue discussing the issue in good faith. I'll take them at their word until I see them saying something else, what else should we do, downvote and flag everyone to hell? And it seems it's not about the administration having good or bad faith or good or bad facts but the OP presenting their case. > Or perhaps you'd be surprised to learn they aren't eating pets in Springfield? There are farms around there, for sure. Some chickens or cows may even have names and eventually get eaten, too. Who knows. I had never been, but was just South of it, in Yellow Springs. A nice little town and big a dairy farm with their own ice-cream and rides and everything.
        tomrod 2y ago
        Yet Trump claimed they (Haitian immigrants) were eating people's dogs and cats. So your first part of the comment could have been an exercise towards food faith, and your latter part, perhaps mildly excusable as an ill attempt at humor in normal times, is for most who read it an attempt to muddy the very clear facts that Trump lies all the time.
- throwworhtthrow 2y ago
  Trump disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign and his voters believed him. If democracy worked, he would be held accountable for this enormous bait-and-switch. > root out corruption and waste, fraud, and abuse That is not what they are doing by most accounts.
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - trescenzi 2y ago
      Part of the difficulty of arguing about this is that the effectiveness is very clearly not there. The following is from treasury.gov[1]: 21 % Social Security 15 % National Defense 14 % Health 13 % Net Interest 13 % Medicare 9 % Income Security 6 % Veterans Benefits and Services 3 % Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 2 % Natural Resources and Environment 2 % Transportation 2 % Other To get the level of cuts they want they cannot legally do it without Congress. [1]: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
  - jimmydoe 2y ago
    Trump disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign, is just a performance appreciated by his voters, as many of his voters believed “be a racist but don’t say it”. The same reason that one of the DOGE youth got fired, not because he is a racist, but because his racism remark got caught.
- Trasmatta 2y ago
  Laws are being broken, Congress is being bypassed, and power is being consolidated by the executive branch and a private unelected citizen. The next part of the playbook is to ignore orders by the court. The goal is to dismantle democracy. The playbook is so obvious - Trump himself even said nobody would have to worry about voting for him again because they would "fix it".
  - meowkit 2y ago
    Which law is being broken?
    - motorest 2y ago
      [flagged]
- lysp 2y ago
  All the cuts are funds already legally allocated by congress. EM or DT do not have the authority to reverse that funding decision outside the democratic / congressional process.
  - haberman 2y ago
    With DACA, Obama unilaterally decided not to enforce laws duly enacted by congress. So what keeps Trump from unilaterally deciding not to spend money duly appropriated by congress?
    - btreecat 2y ago
      > With DACA, Obama unilaterally decided not to enforce laws duly enacted by congress. > > So what keeps Trump from unilaterally deciding not to spend money duly appropriated by congress? I had to think about this. What's the point/goal of giving the power of the purse to Congress if it's actually just a slush fund? If Congress can allocate money for the courts, but the executive is the one tasked with execution (DOJ) and decided not spend that, we are saying there is no real need to balance power. So if there's no authority to direct spending, what prevents the executive from spending money on replacing the courts and Congress?
      - tomrod 2y ago
        The impoundment act. But good luck getting that enforced with a do-nothing, complicit Congress.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        I think the issue is Congress enacting a slush fund and then getting mad that the executive is treating it as such. Congress does have the authority to direct spending, but doesn’t always do so. Here’s an example appropriation for USAID: > development assistance > For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of sections 103, 105, 106, 214, and sections 251 through 255, and chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $3,000,000,000 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771... If you look at the foreign assistance act it’s extremely broad. That’s how you end up with USAID giving money to AFL-CIO to fund labor movements in Bangladesh. They get three billion dollars to spend however they can creatively fit under the general categories of things like “education.” So what supervisory role has Congress really left itself over that money?
- agildehaus 2y ago
  Something like USAID is established by statute (The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). It cannot be eliminated or gutted by executive order. Sidestepping this, which is happening left and right currently, is democracy failing.
  - meowkit 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tomrod 2y ago
      No, they are laying off all staff and shutting down established programs.
    - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
      Shutting down everything isn't an audit. Looking at some top level line items is not an audit. An audit takes time and you have a plan and reasons to back it up when it's done. What is happening is things are being indiscriminately torn down. Maybe it's for the best, but as there's no analysis, people are rightfully concerned about what is happening.
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      “I went over it with him in detail, and he agreed that we should shut it down,” Musk said. “And I actually checked with him a few times [and] said ‘are you sure?’” The answer was yes, he said. “And so we’re shutting it down,” Musk said.
  - ctrlp 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ojbyrne 2y ago
      Technically this was superseded and USAID was legally established by statute in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [1]. Perhaps you forgot to take notes when that happened. 1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500
- andrei_says_ 2y ago
  I am not sold on these actions being done in good faith, or legally. There’s a lot of evidence of forceful behavior in obtaining access to highly sensitive systems. Also, the government is here to run services, for us, with the money we give it in the form of taxes. Removing all government services in order to save money (and provide tax cuts to the 0.1% richest people and corps.) seems to be based in the belief that we are here to serve the people at the top. This is not the spirit of democracy. Another notable fact is that the current leadership consists of people who are not known for healthy governance providing care and benefit for many. They are known for maximizing extraction, and shocking lack of compassion and understanding. Besides the open racism and sadistic dickishness. Which, to be fair, we’re a part of the hatred and fear-based platform.
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    I have lived experience dealing with selling software to government agencies. I have observed egregious activity, which to my company's government salesmen, didn't cause them to blink an eye. In one case, the DoD budget ran out of money, but the DoD budget for Disabled Veteran purchasing still had money, so we added 10% to the contract and resold through a disabled veteran's LLC, the taxpayer got screwed, the LLC-owner made a 6 figure fee for doing nothing, and we got paid. This, I was told, was literally nothing compared to what else our salesmen had seen! But I was scandalized as an honest 20-something worker bee. Such a minor case of course. But this is a microcosm of the entire problem. No one cares, no one is incentivized, no one represents the taxpayer. How does a US politician on a $175k salary become worth $80 million after 30 years in congress? The system is rigged, and the majority of the American people see themselves as suckers and are tired of it.
    - zimpenfish 2y ago
      > How does a US politician on a $175k salary become worth $80 million after 30 years in congress? Which politician are we talking about here? Or are we being generic? From what I've seen, the majority of people in Congress started off rich because, well, you need to be rich (or at least rich-adjacent) to even consider running.
- btreecat 2y ago
  I don't see how the current actions are leading to a reduction in waste. Could you elaborate on how the recent actions are connected with improved spending outcomes?
- etempleton 2y ago
  1. There is question of legal authority for the executive branch to be doing what it is doing.These departments were established by acts of congress and an act of congress would need to shut them down. What DOGE is doing is by passing congress and de facto shutting them down by not letting them operate. Eventually the courts will probably catch up and and say DOGE has to stop doing X,Y, and Z, but in the short-term they are taking advantage. 2. It is of legal question whether Musk should have been confirmed by congress given the the access and power he is wielding. Yes, Trump was democratically elected and yes, Musk was appointed, but democracy requires the rule of law to be followed or the whole thing starts to fall apart.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Responding in good faith: Winning the popular vote does not make you dictator. It makes you president within the existing laws. You want to change the way things are done? That's fine. You have a mandate to do so based on the vote? Also fine. Do it within the existing laws. There are laws in a number of areas (firing federal employees, impoundment, spoils system, probably others that don't come to my mind immediately) that Trump seems to be violating. He doesn't get to do that. He has to stay within the law, because it's the law that makes him president instead of "most popular guy this year". And it doesn't seem to be that he just missed a few steps. He doesn't seem to care about the law at all. That's democracy failing - having a president who thinks he can do whatever he wants, and the law doesn't bind him. That's a president who's trying to be a king. Now, that's kind of a "vibe" thing. It's not one action; it's more a perception of the cumulation of all his actions. Which means that other people can perceive it differently from how I do, because they assign different weights to his actions. But to me, the trend of the whole is troubling.
smitty1e 2y ago
> I'm incredibly depressed and disillusioned to see fellow software engineers drinking the Kool-aid so deeply while they dismantle the US federal government. Please point to a single component of the US federal government in its founding document, the Constitution, that has received as much as a glance. The last century of cruft, corruptly driven by people not standing for election is where the action is found. $37T of debt later, we're at the end of a cycle. Let's just make sure DOGE is not a cure worse than the disease.
- Trasmatta 2y ago
  DOGE is not about waste, it's about continuing to bypass Congress and consolidate power in the executive branch.
  - programmerpass 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Trasmatta 2y ago
      Comments like this remind me that many Americans genuinely want a dictator It's baffling
      - amazingamazing 2y ago
        How did you come to that conclusion from their comment?
        Trasmatta 2y ago
        Consolidating power in the executive branch is about creating a dictatorship. How could it be anything else? They're trying to neuter the other branches of government. Trump has explicitly and repeatedly expressed a desire to be a dictator.
        2y ago
ClarityGuy 2y ago
[flagged]
- kevingadd 2y ago
  Who are the domestic political prisoners you're talking about? The rioters who broke into the capitol, reportedly resulting in 5 deaths and at least a hundred injuries? Or different ones
  - ClarityGuy 2y ago
    [flagged]
ctrlp 2y ago
[flagged]
- laidoffamazon 2y ago
  That's true, but these are Yarvin acolytes. They literally don't believe in democracy. They think their superior intellect entitles them to rule over the rest of us.
- Trasmatta 2y ago
  How about: any democracy where Elon Musk (an unelected, private citizen) isn't granted unfettered access to dismantle the federal government.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    He's fettered by the CEO to whom he reports.
    - galangalalgol 2y ago
      Recent body language analysis brings that into question. But it isn't a very precise science.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - EnergyAmy 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - ctrlp 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > Musk at least is an agent of the guy who just won the election. Yeah: The guy who said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes. That guy. Who wasn't elected absolute monarch, no matter what the unitary-executive crowd fondly believes.
nsonha 2y ago
Half of these people are software engineers, many in their early 20s. I don't even need the gender card to point out that the group seems highly biased.
moralestapia 2y ago
>Why I gave up a seven-figure salary to save America That's also a bit disingenuous. You can save America today by not being an ass to others, doing what you know is right and spending some of your free time helping others. Plenty of charities one can get involved with, locally as well. The reason why they're there is because "I worked for Musk" in your CV translates to tens/hundreds of millions of dollars later in life.
GiorgioG 2y ago
> I've learned the hard way that many people in this country do NOT actually care about democracy. Our democracy has been eroding for decades. Congress collects paychecks while gridlocking progress, even on bipartisan issues that could help ordinary citizens. Super PACs and "campaign contributions" (aka bribes) ensure the wealthy control both parties. Democrats and Republicans both spend recklessly and divide the nation. Democrats won't admit it, but their approach has driven half the country to prefer what the Republicans have become: essentially a cult.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Except the real issues are immigration and globalization. The NYT did a couple of great podcasts about both issues: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/magazine/nafta-tarriffs-economy-trump-kamala-harris.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/magazine/nafta-tarriffs-e... A majority of Americans have never supported either policy, but the credentialed elites in both parties have done so for decades. And both things have been accomplished largely through executive action. E.g. turning H1B from a temporary worker program into a pathway to permanent residency, or free trade agreements. If anyone else would simply commit to severely immigration and free trade, Trump’s hold on the GOP would evaporate. We have seen it happen in other countries—in Denmark the left capitulated on immigration and everything is fine again.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > Except the real issues are immigration and globalization. The US is a country of immigrants, and has been so since it's inception. H1Bs are not about limiting immigration at all. They are about having a workforce without basic rights and bestow corporations with the power of uprooting an employee's life and banishing them from the land if he even dares stepping out of line. The axes hanging over the regular folk's head, such as corporate control over access to healthcare, is not enough to completely control the workforce. They still feel they need more control. That's why mechanisms like H1Bs exist, and why illegal immigrants are still widely employed and the ruling regime punishes workers but always protects the employers who insist in hiring them almost exclusively.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I speak from personal history, but it's really easy to take a bunch of theoretically smart, high-achieving young people, give them a singular purpose, and have them work in overdrive with a level of arrogance that fits their lack of wisdom. It's essentially exactly how Mao was able to create the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.
- jimmydoe 2y ago
  I guess the operation principle for Trump II is, if we want to beat China, be China first.
- derangedHorse 2y ago
  The Cultural Revolution did not have theoretically smart, high-achieving young people. Most of the atrocities were done by people who hated the "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people"
  - computerthings 2y ago
    I think the current idea is for the violence to be done by prison guards in El Salvador. The kind of person that thinks SV "built the modern world", and that they're part of a new tier of human being for having gotten rich for stuff like having worked on a game for kids 11 years ago, and therefore are entitled to co-rule the world from now on, are just useful fools that help to enable that.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > Most of the atrocities were done by people who hated the "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people" No, most of the atrocities were done to eliminate political threats by targeting everyone who had a semblance of power and did not fell in line. Academia was targeted not because of an anti-intellectual push but because they could counter the influence of the new totalitarian regime trying to establish itself. There's a good reason why the leaders of said authoritarian pushes were lauded as the brightest minds in the land, whose writings should be consumed with a religious fervor.
programmerpass 2y ago
[flagged]
- Teever 2y ago
  We could look at countries that have healthy democracies and see what they're doing differently. What are countries like Finland, Norway, or Estonia doing differently and how can we import it to our countries?
- Trasmatta 2y ago
  Your post is almost nothing but strawmen, it's almost impossible to respond to. But I will say that DOGE is not attempting to fix anything. It's attempting to consolidate power. Have you paid any attention to how Musk operates?
refurb 2y ago
> The fact that nobody is stopping these people is the clearest evidence anyone needs that there's no such thing as "the deep state". What do you mean? I see plenty of people trying to stop DOGE. Not very successful so far, considering the President does have significant powers over the Executive function. And the "deep state" is nothing special. It's simply the unelected government employees. It's the same thing you see in big private corporations and the reason why CEOs tend to fire all the VPs and each org "cleans house" - people who don't agree with your mission will work to oppose it.
rayiner 2y ago
Sincere question: are you and I using “democracy” to mean the same thing? What Trump is doing is a reversion to how the federal government was run after the founding and during the 18th century (what’s derisively called the “spoils system”). Trump campaigned with a bunch of people with specific ideas (RFK, Musk, Gabbard, etc.) and then when elected put those people in positions of authority. Here, taking an axe to the civil service was Item #9 on Trump’s platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform. He sent Musk as his surrogate to camp out in the key swing state of Pennsylvania the week before the election. For many Trump voters, this is what they voted for. For others, maybe DOGE wasn’t their thing, but they were content with it to get RFK Jr. or Gabbard or Tom Homan. And from all those people you got a winning coalition. What you’re talking about sounds more like Wilsonian managerialism. Where elections are more like an input signal to a credentialed civil service service that applies its expertise to the problems of governance: https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/woodrow-wilson-s-case-against-the-constitution https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/woodrow-wilson-s-c.... You can make a fair case that governance by detached civil servants is better, but how can you possibly say that it’s more democratic?
- tomrod 2y ago
  Typically, democratic means voting people in Congress in, then Congress votes and represents their constituents. There is a reason the President was not initially elected by the people. The spoils system and the current systems failings are precisely that foresight. When Congress is weak, the Executive is unchecked. Go read the Old Whig 4
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    Luckily a weak congress can be replaced. I see nothing that has happened so far personally that cannot be democratically corrected.
  - derangedHorse 2y ago
    > Typically, democratic means voting people in Congress in, then Congress votes and represents their constituents That's still happening.
ty6853 2y ago
Democracy is 'good' mainly because it represents a vote of who would win a violent fight, and anticipating that, we can bypass all that and just defer to the victors without bloodshed. As means of violence becomes less equal amongst those granted suffrage, though, democracy becomes less stable as there is no longer clear visibility as to why the losers must defer. If we weren't easily slaughtered meat sacks, I'd say democracy rather sucks.

SoftTalker 2y ago

Most people drink kool-aid. It's just a matter of whether it's blue or red.

monero-xmr 2y ago

[flagged]

tomrod 2y ago
Trump is ignoring laws. Canning USAID is a great example. Ignoring background check processes is another.
- ctrlp 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - genter 2y ago
    The part of the constitution that says only Congress can create laws and the president just implements them.
    - nsonha 2y ago
      He didn't create any law in this matter and he used a legal path way, executive orders. Do cry about the broken system.
      - tomrod 2y ago
        No, he is closing down an agency using Executive Orders; however, as currently constituted, only Congress can shut down the agency. > The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency. In a section titled “Status of AID” (22 U.S.C. 6563) it states: >> (a) In general >> Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. Because the agency is an independent agency, it cannot be interrupted without going through the appropriate channel. [0] https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-usaid-by-executive-order/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-u...
  - tomrod 2y ago
    https://thehill.com/policy/international/foreign-aid/5123972-lawmakers-legal-experts-warn-shuttering-usaid-is-unconstitutional/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/foreign-aid/5123972...
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - motorest 2y ago
    > OK, we have an independent judiciary to decide on the legality. You don't. > Just because you say it's illegal doesn't mean it is. It's illegal to the point it even violates the US constitution. > Biden unilaterally cancelled a trillion dollars of college debt, which the Supreme Court said was illegal, (...) The Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Education didn't had the authority to enact such a large program and needed to seek approval from congress, and the rule was called by Trump's appointees. Biden's student loan debt programs still went ahead because, unlike the original claim, the department of education already was running student debt forgiveness programs before and during Trump's first term, and those existing programs were never questioned as being illegal or unconstitutional. The fact that you are trying to compare this event to Trump's string of illegal and unconstitutional efforts to shut down and dismantle the whole federal government, not to mention the whole sabotage campaign involving threatening long-standing allies of military invasion and economic war, speaks volumes of how disingenuous you're being.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      And what's even worse, the person you replied to may lot even realize how disingenuous they are being. This is the level of propaganda that is tearing through the US.
  - galangalalgol 2y ago
    But the DOJ replied to that independent judiciary that was not bound by their decision... It wasn't appealed to a supreme court that would likely overrule the lower court, it was simply asserted that the judges order didn't matter. That is the sort of thing I find concerning. Firing non appointed law enforcement officers without stated cause too. If you walk down the autocratic playbook for the rise to power, there are way too many parallels for comfort. Ask chatgpt to provide them along with relevant quotes from well known autocrats. Some of the judicial orders do seem to be getting followed now, I have some bit of hope that the supreme court won't do anything too obviously biased.
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tomrod 2y ago
    > The access that DOGE and Elon has is strictly legal via standard government processes. Nope, you are mistaken. The EO gave access for DOGE and unclassified systems. Treasury has quite a bit that is classified. This is why the lawsuits to stop them have merit. https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-and-directives/treasury-directive-15-72 https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-a...
    - jandrewrogers 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tomrod 2y ago
        Cite the regs. Cure what you feel is inaccurate.
        jandrewrogers 2y ago
        This isn’t a serious request. The ability of authorities to grant arbitrary people access to classified information has been the law of the land forever. If you are unfamiliar with this then you are not in a position to make a credible argument. I am not going to play a game of “fetch a rock” with someone incapable of cursory research. This is my world, I know how it works.
        btreecat 2y ago
        > This is my world, I know how it works. "Trust me bro"
        tomrod 2y ago
        Where you have made your claim isn't 'your world,' it's the open web. You may or may not spend any time at all, but taking people at their word was ruined by 4chan and other trolls. Since I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I actually chatted about my questions with people who operate in the space, let me add more information to the conversation. First, governing documents: Executive Order 13526 - Governs classification of national security information, including Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential levels. - Who Can Override? President - Override Process: The President can declassify or reclassify any classified information at will. Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) - Controls handling of classified information in legal proceedings. - Who Can Override? Federal Courts (Judges) - Override Process: Judges can determine whether classified evidence can be disclosed in court. National Industrial Security Program (NISP) (Executive Order 12829) - Regulates access to classified information by contractors and private entities. - Who Can Override? President, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) - Override Process: The President can issue waivers; DCSA can grant or deny access based on security clearances. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - Regulates intelligence gathering on foreign entities and individuals. - Who Can Override? FISA Court (FISC) - Override Process: Judges can approve or disapprove classified surveillance requests. Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 - Governs access to classified nuclear information ("Restricted Data"). - Who Can Override? President, Department of Energy (DOE), Congress - Override Process: The President and DOE can declassify certain nuclear information. Congress can pass legislation altering classification. Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 - Regulates access to presidential records, including classified materials. - Who Can Override? Incumbent President - Override Process: The sitting President can restrict or release prior administration records. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - Allows public access to government records but exempts classified materials. - Who Can Override? Agencies, Courts, President - Override Process: Agencies can deny requests, courts can order disclosure, and the President can override agency decisions. Department of Defense (DoD) Information Security Program (DoDM 5200.01) - Regulates access to military and defense-related classified information. - Who Can Override? Secretary of Defense, President - Override Process: The Secretary of Defense can restrict access within DoD, and the President can override classifications. While a President could certainly grant access to classified (and sensitive) systems, there are still laws that prevent hostile takeovers like what Elon Musk and DOGE have done (which, you recall, were explicitly given access by executive order to unclassified systems). The laws, acts, and regs I would have expected you to cite include: - FISMA (2014) - CISA (2015) - EO 13800 - Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (2004) - CFAA (Title 18, USC Sec.1030) Can the president override these restrictions? Not directly -- while the prez has authority over classified information and executive agencies, federal laws explicitly prohibit unauthorized access to IT systems, even by high-ranking officials such as DOGE. IT systems within agencies like the Treasury, OPM, and USAID operate under internal security policies and congressional oversight. A president attempting wholesale access to these systems without proper legal justification can lead to legal challenges (as it has), congressional investigations, and potential violations of federal law. Some of the policies in these agencies, based on decades of experience in securing the systems, are - DoD Instruction 8500.01 (Cybersecurity) - established RBAC and principle of least privillege - DoD Instruction 8530.01 (Cybersecurity Activities Support to DoD Information Network Operations) -- monitoring of privileged users - Army Regulation (AR) 25-2 (Army Cybersecurity) - MFA requirements -- Army specific, but similar regs at other agencies. Now, what if someone with authority grants unauthorized access? You're talking espionage act now. CFAA too. Privacy act. Insider threat (EO 13587). Granting unauthorized access to federal IT systems, classified data, or sensitive records is a serious crime. If national security is compromised, penalties become even harsher under espionage laws. Now, if you're actually in this world, I welcome your substantive additions to the conversation.
- afpx 2y ago
  It’ll be handled by the courts then, right? Personally, I like the bold approach. I really dislike Trump and would never ever consider voting for the guy. This isn’t the outcome that I hoped for, but I appreciate that he’s trying to do something at least, even if it fails. Only 34% of Americans trust the government for a lot of valid reasons. We’ve been at war for pretty much forever. We keep innerworkings of government secret for ‘national security’. And, I have never liked how we influence elections and governments around the world. It always felt so gross. I’ve done work with USAID and have seen first hand their ineffective humanitarian aid programs. It’s not surprising that they haven’t made much progress in over 50 years when you consider the perverse incentives.
ctrlp 2y ago
[flagged]
- rdtsc 2y ago
  Pretty much. Person asks "how did Americans allow this?". Someone responds and get downvoted and flagged to hell. Funny enough, that also models the reason why people are in shock? "How could this happen, all the posts, media, and polls I saw were predicting a Harris win? Was it the Russians? The aliens?". Yet here someone responding honestly, and they get downvoted to hell and disappear. Next cycle it will be the same, "how could this happen, everything I read and everyone I asked all agreed with ... and then ..."
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Oh please. Good faith requires facts, which this current administration does not use. Or perhaps you'd be surprised to learn they aren't eating pets in Springfield?
    - rdtsc 2y ago
      > Oh please. Oh sure, anytime > Good faith requires facts, which this current administration does not use. I don't know, the OP (or GP?) post said they were wanted to continue discussing the issue in good faith. I'll take them at their word until I see them saying something else, what else should we do, downvote and flag everyone to hell? And it seems it's not about the administration having good or bad faith or good or bad facts but the OP presenting their case. > Or perhaps you'd be surprised to learn they aren't eating pets in Springfield? There are farms around there, for sure. Some chickens or cows may even have names and eventually get eaten, too. Who knows. I had never been, but was just South of it, in Yellow Springs. A nice little town and big a dairy farm with their own ice-cream and rides and everything.
      - tomrod 2y ago
        Yet Trump claimed they (Haitian immigrants) were eating people's dogs and cats. So your first part of the comment could have been an exercise towards food faith, and your latter part, perhaps mildly excusable as an ill attempt at humor in normal times, is for most who read it an attempt to muddy the very clear facts that Trump lies all the time.
throwworhtthrow 2y ago
Trump disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign and his voters believed him. If democracy worked, he would be held accountable for this enormous bait-and-switch. > root out corruption and waste, fraud, and abuse That is not what they are doing by most accounts.
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - trescenzi 2y ago
    Part of the difficulty of arguing about this is that the effectiveness is very clearly not there. The following is from treasury.gov[1]: 21 % Social Security 15 % National Defense 14 % Health 13 % Net Interest 13 % Medicare 9 % Income Security 6 % Veterans Benefits and Services 3 % Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 2 % Natural Resources and Environment 2 % Transportation 2 % Other To get the level of cuts they want they cannot legally do it without Congress. [1]: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
- jimmydoe 2y ago
  Trump disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign, is just a performance appreciated by his voters, as many of his voters believed “be a racist but don’t say it”. The same reason that one of the DOGE youth got fired, not because he is a racist, but because his racism remark got caught.
Trasmatta 2y ago
Laws are being broken, Congress is being bypassed, and power is being consolidated by the executive branch and a private unelected citizen. The next part of the playbook is to ignore orders by the court. The goal is to dismantle democracy. The playbook is so obvious - Trump himself even said nobody would have to worry about voting for him again because they would "fix it".
- meowkit 2y ago
  Which law is being broken?
  - motorest 2y ago
    [flagged]
lysp 2y ago
All the cuts are funds already legally allocated by congress. EM or DT do not have the authority to reverse that funding decision outside the democratic / congressional process.
- haberman 2y ago
  With DACA, Obama unilaterally decided not to enforce laws duly enacted by congress. So what keeps Trump from unilaterally deciding not to spend money duly appropriated by congress?
  - btreecat 2y ago
    > With DACA, Obama unilaterally decided not to enforce laws duly enacted by congress. > > So what keeps Trump from unilaterally deciding not to spend money duly appropriated by congress? I had to think about this. What's the point/goal of giving the power of the purse to Congress if it's actually just a slush fund? If Congress can allocate money for the courts, but the executive is the one tasked with execution (DOJ) and decided not spend that, we are saying there is no real need to balance power. So if there's no authority to direct spending, what prevents the executive from spending money on replacing the courts and Congress?
    - tomrod 2y ago
      The impoundment act. But good luck getting that enforced with a do-nothing, complicit Congress.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      I think the issue is Congress enacting a slush fund and then getting mad that the executive is treating it as such. Congress does have the authority to direct spending, but doesn’t always do so. Here’s an example appropriation for USAID: > development assistance > For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of sections 103, 105, 106, 214, and sections 251 through 255, and chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $3,000,000,000 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771... If you look at the foreign assistance act it’s extremely broad. That’s how you end up with USAID giving money to AFL-CIO to fund labor movements in Bangladesh. They get three billion dollars to spend however they can creatively fit under the general categories of things like “education.” So what supervisory role has Congress really left itself over that money?
agildehaus 2y ago
Something like USAID is established by statute (The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). It cannot be eliminated or gutted by executive order. Sidestepping this, which is happening left and right currently, is democracy failing.
- meowkit 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tomrod 2y ago
    No, they are laying off all staff and shutting down established programs.
  - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
    Shutting down everything isn't an audit. Looking at some top level line items is not an audit. An audit takes time and you have a plan and reasons to back it up when it's done. What is happening is things are being indiscriminately torn down. Maybe it's for the best, but as there's no analysis, people are rightfully concerned about what is happening.
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    “I went over it with him in detail, and he agreed that we should shut it down,” Musk said. “And I actually checked with him a few times [and] said ‘are you sure?’” The answer was yes, he said. “And so we’re shutting it down,” Musk said.
- ctrlp 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ojbyrne 2y ago
    Technically this was superseded and USAID was legally established by statute in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [1]. Perhaps you forgot to take notes when that happened. 1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500
andrei_says_ 2y ago
I am not sold on these actions being done in good faith, or legally. There’s a lot of evidence of forceful behavior in obtaining access to highly sensitive systems. Also, the government is here to run services, for us, with the money we give it in the form of taxes. Removing all government services in order to save money (and provide tax cuts to the 0.1% richest people and corps.) seems to be based in the belief that we are here to serve the people at the top. This is not the spirit of democracy. Another notable fact is that the current leadership consists of people who are not known for healthy governance providing care and benefit for many. They are known for maximizing extraction, and shocking lack of compassion and understanding. Besides the open racism and sadistic dickishness. Which, to be fair, we’re a part of the hatred and fear-based platform.
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  I have lived experience dealing with selling software to government agencies. I have observed egregious activity, which to my company's government salesmen, didn't cause them to blink an eye. In one case, the DoD budget ran out of money, but the DoD budget for Disabled Veteran purchasing still had money, so we added 10% to the contract and resold through a disabled veteran's LLC, the taxpayer got screwed, the LLC-owner made a 6 figure fee for doing nothing, and we got paid. This, I was told, was literally nothing compared to what else our salesmen had seen! But I was scandalized as an honest 20-something worker bee. Such a minor case of course. But this is a microcosm of the entire problem. No one cares, no one is incentivized, no one represents the taxpayer. How does a US politician on a $175k salary become worth $80 million after 30 years in congress? The system is rigged, and the majority of the American people see themselves as suckers and are tired of it.
  - zimpenfish 2y ago
    > How does a US politician on a $175k salary become worth $80 million after 30 years in congress? Which politician are we talking about here? Or are we being generic? From what I've seen, the majority of people in Congress started off rich because, well, you need to be rich (or at least rich-adjacent) to even consider running.
btreecat 2y ago
I don't see how the current actions are leading to a reduction in waste. Could you elaborate on how the recent actions are connected with improved spending outcomes?
etempleton 2y ago
1. There is question of legal authority for the executive branch to be doing what it is doing.These departments were established by acts of congress and an act of congress would need to shut them down. What DOGE is doing is by passing congress and de facto shutting them down by not letting them operate. Eventually the courts will probably catch up and and say DOGE has to stop doing X,Y, and Z, but in the short-term they are taking advantage. 2. It is of legal question whether Musk should have been confirmed by congress given the the access and power he is wielding. Yes, Trump was democratically elected and yes, Musk was appointed, but democracy requires the rule of law to be followed or the whole thing starts to fall apart.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Responding in good faith: Winning the popular vote does not make you dictator. It makes you president within the existing laws. You want to change the way things are done? That's fine. You have a mandate to do so based on the vote? Also fine. Do it within the existing laws. There are laws in a number of areas (firing federal employees, impoundment, spoils system, probably others that don't come to my mind immediately) that Trump seems to be violating. He doesn't get to do that. He has to stay within the law, because it's the law that makes him president instead of "most popular guy this year". And it doesn't seem to be that he just missed a few steps. He doesn't seem to care about the law at all. That's democracy failing - having a president who thinks he can do whatever he wants, and the law doesn't bind him. That's a president who's trying to be a king. Now, that's kind of a "vibe" thing. It's not one action; it's more a perception of the cumulation of all his actions. Which means that other people can perceive it differently from how I do, because they assign different weights to his actions. But to me, the trend of the whole is troubling.

smitty1e 2y ago

> I'm incredibly depressed and disillusioned to see fellow software engineers drinking the Kool-aid so deeply while they dismantle the US federal government. Please point to a single component of the US federal government in its founding document, the Constitution, that has received as much as a glance. The last century of cruft, corruptly driven by people not standing for election is where the action is found. $37T of debt later, we're at the end of a cycle. Let's just make sure DOGE is not a cure worse than the disease.

Trasmatta 2y ago
DOGE is not about waste, it's about continuing to bypass Congress and consolidate power in the executive branch.
- programmerpass 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Trasmatta 2y ago
    Comments like this remind me that many Americans genuinely want a dictator It's baffling
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      How did you come to that conclusion from their comment?
      - Trasmatta 2y ago
        Consolidating power in the executive branch is about creating a dictatorship. How could it be anything else? They're trying to neuter the other branches of government. Trump has explicitly and repeatedly expressed a desire to be a dictator.
        2y ago

ClarityGuy 2y ago

[flagged]

kevingadd 2y ago
Who are the domestic political prisoners you're talking about? The rioters who broke into the capitol, reportedly resulting in 5 deaths and at least a hundred injuries? Or different ones
- ClarityGuy 2y ago
  [flagged]

ctrlp 2y ago

[flagged]

laidoffamazon 2y ago
That's true, but these are Yarvin acolytes. They literally don't believe in democracy. They think their superior intellect entitles them to rule over the rest of us.
Trasmatta 2y ago
How about: any democracy where Elon Musk (an unelected, private citizen) isn't granted unfettered access to dismantle the federal government.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  He's fettered by the CEO to whom he reports.
  - galangalalgol 2y ago
    Recent body language analysis brings that into question. But it isn't a very precise science.
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - EnergyAmy 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - ctrlp 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > Musk at least is an agent of the guy who just won the election. Yeah: The guy who said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes. That guy. Who wasn't elected absolute monarch, no matter what the unitary-executive crowd fondly believes.

nsonha 2y ago

Half of these people are software engineers, many in their early 20s. I don't even need the gender card to point out that the group seems highly biased.

moralestapia 2y ago

>Why I gave up a seven-figure salary to save America That's also a bit disingenuous. You can save America today by not being an ass to others, doing what you know is right and spending some of your free time helping others. Plenty of charities one can get involved with, locally as well. The reason why they're there is because "I worked for Musk" in your CV translates to tens/hundreds of millions of dollars later in life.

GiorgioG 2y ago

> I've learned the hard way that many people in this country do NOT actually care about democracy. Our democracy has been eroding for decades. Congress collects paychecks while gridlocking progress, even on bipartisan issues that could help ordinary citizens. Super PACs and "campaign contributions" (aka bribes) ensure the wealthy control both parties. Democrats and Republicans both spend recklessly and divide the nation. Democrats won't admit it, but their approach has driven half the country to prefer what the Republicans have become: essentially a cult.

rayiner 2y ago
Except the real issues are immigration and globalization. The NYT did a couple of great podcasts about both issues: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/magazine/nafta-tarriffs-economy-trump-kamala-harris.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/magazine/nafta-tarriffs-e... A majority of Americans have never supported either policy, but the credentialed elites in both parties have done so for decades. And both things have been accomplished largely through executive action. E.g. turning H1B from a temporary worker program into a pathway to permanent residency, or free trade agreements. If anyone else would simply commit to severely immigration and free trade, Trump’s hold on the GOP would evaporate. We have seen it happen in other countries—in Denmark the left capitulated on immigration and everything is fine again.
- motorest 2y ago
  > Except the real issues are immigration and globalization. The US is a country of immigrants, and has been so since it's inception. H1Bs are not about limiting immigration at all. They are about having a workforce without basic rights and bestow corporations with the power of uprooting an employee's life and banishing them from the land if he even dares stepping out of line. The axes hanging over the regular folk's head, such as corporate control over access to healthcare, is not enough to completely control the workforce. They still feel they need more control. That's why mechanisms like H1Bs exist, and why illegal immigrants are still widely employed and the ruling regime punishes workers but always protects the employers who insist in hiring them almost exclusively.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

I speak from personal history, but it's really easy to take a bunch of theoretically smart, high-achieving young people, give them a singular purpose, and have them work in overdrive with a level of arrogance that fits their lack of wisdom. It's essentially exactly how Mao was able to create the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.

jimmydoe 2y ago
I guess the operation principle for Trump II is, if we want to beat China, be China first.
derangedHorse 2y ago
The Cultural Revolution did not have theoretically smart, high-achieving young people. Most of the atrocities were done by people who hated the "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people"
- computerthings 2y ago
  I think the current idea is for the violence to be done by prison guards in El Salvador. The kind of person that thinks SV "built the modern world", and that they're part of a new tier of human being for having gotten rich for stuff like having worked on a game for kids 11 years ago, and therefore are entitled to co-rule the world from now on, are just useful fools that help to enable that.
- motorest 2y ago
  > Most of the atrocities were done by people who hated the "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people" No, most of the atrocities were done to eliminate political threats by targeting everyone who had a semblance of power and did not fell in line. Academia was targeted not because of an anti-intellectual push but because they could counter the influence of the new totalitarian regime trying to establish itself. There's a good reason why the leaders of said authoritarian pushes were lauded as the brightest minds in the land, whose writings should be consumed with a religious fervor.

programmerpass 2y ago

[flagged]

Teever 2y ago
We could look at countries that have healthy democracies and see what they're doing differently. What are countries like Finland, Norway, or Estonia doing differently and how can we import it to our countries?
Trasmatta 2y ago
Your post is almost nothing but strawmen, it's almost impossible to respond to. But I will say that DOGE is not attempting to fix anything. It's attempting to consolidate power. Have you paid any attention to how Musk operates?

refurb 2y ago

> The fact that nobody is stopping these people is the clearest evidence anyone needs that there's no such thing as "the deep state". What do you mean? I see plenty of people trying to stop DOGE. Not very successful so far, considering the President does have significant powers over the Executive function. And the "deep state" is nothing special. It's simply the unelected government employees. It's the same thing you see in big private corporations and the reason why CEOs tend to fire all the VPs and each org "cleans house" - people who don't agree with your mission will work to oppose it.

rayiner 2y ago

Sincere question: are you and I using “democracy” to mean the same thing? What Trump is doing is a reversion to how the federal government was run after the founding and during the 18th century (what’s derisively called the “spoils system”). Trump campaigned with a bunch of people with specific ideas (RFK, Musk, Gabbard, etc.) and then when elected put those people in positions of authority. Here, taking an axe to the civil service was Item #9 on Trump’s platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform. He sent Musk as his surrogate to camp out in the key swing state of Pennsylvania the week before the election. For many Trump voters, this is what they voted for. For others, maybe DOGE wasn’t their thing, but they were content with it to get RFK Jr. or Gabbard or Tom Homan. And from all those people you got a winning coalition. What you’re talking about sounds more like Wilsonian managerialism. Where elections are more like an input signal to a credentialed civil service service that applies its expertise to the problems of governance: https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/woodrow-wilson-s-case-against-the-constitution https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/woodrow-wilson-s-c.... You can make a fair case that governance by detached civil servants is better, but how can you possibly say that it’s more democratic?

tomrod 2y ago
Typically, democratic means voting people in Congress in, then Congress votes and represents their constituents. There is a reason the President was not initially elected by the people. The spoils system and the current systems failings are precisely that foresight. When Congress is weak, the Executive is unchecked. Go read the Old Whig 4
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  Luckily a weak congress can be replaced. I see nothing that has happened so far personally that cannot be democratically corrected.
- derangedHorse 2y ago
  > Typically, democratic means voting people in Congress in, then Congress votes and represents their constituents That's still happening.

ty6853 2y ago

Democracy is 'good' mainly because it represents a vote of who would win a violent fight, and anticipating that, we can bypass all that and just defer to the victors without bloodshed. As means of violence becomes less equal amongst those granted suffrage, though, democracy becomes less stable as there is no longer clear visibility as to why the losers must defer. If we weren't easily slaughtered meat sacks, I'd say democracy rather sucks.