5 ms·

> At some point we have to consider the possibility that these aren’t just cuts to the budget "At some point"? That point was a few weeks, like when they blind

> At some point we have to consider the possibility that these aren’t just cuts to the budget "At some point"? That point was a few weeks, like when they blindly purged the folks that did maintenance on nuclear weapons: * https://time.com/7225798/doge-fires-national-nuclear-security-administration-energy-rehires-musk-trump/ https://time.com/7225798/doge-fires-national-nuclear-securit... Or when they purged people dealing with bird flu: * https://apnews.com/article/usda-firings-doge-bird-flu-trump-fdd6495cbe44c96d471ae8c6cf4dd0a8 https://apnews.com/article/usda-firings-doge-bird-flu-trump-...

csomar 2y ago
Given that they Kennedy retracted on the vaccine mandate suggests gross incompetence might be at play here.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  I normally defer to Hanlon's Razor, but with this administration it's 50/50 if their actions are due to incompetence or malice. The only thing we know is their intent is never to benefit the majority of the people they are meant to be serving.
  - tedivm 2y ago
    I don't think we need to pick between incompetence and malice here. I think both apply to most of their actions.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    Select non-malicious but incompetent people to head departments, gives you plausible deniability when people claim that what's happening is malicious. "No, look, RFK Jr is sincere in his desire to help the American people." He's just really bad at it. Of course, that doesn't speak well to the judgment of the people at the top. They'll try and claim that RFK Jr did a fine job and it was the Deep State that caused the problems.
    - brookst 2y ago
      Probably exactly what will happen. “Oh, with the dramatic reduction in vaccinations the American people would have been so much healthier, but the Deep State sprayed measles from chemtrails just to make us look bad”
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    At this point, I don't see why it should matter if it's criminal negligence or malice. They know what they are doing is illegal. Or, if they don't, it's because they are actively insisting on not learning it, what shouldn't make any difference.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > I normally defer to Hanlon's Razor, but with this administration it's 50/50 if their actions are due to incompetence or malice. The incompetent people were hired / appointed[1] as a form of malice against the "Deep State" (read: civil service) specifically, and government and civil society in general. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    Hanlon’s razor is funny because it assumes that malicious actors can’t be incompetent and incompetent people can’t act maliciously. It is a fun logical trick that functions by pretending that huge swathes of the population don’t exist, like a sort of inverted cognitive behavioral therapy exercise
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      I don't think it is assuming that malicious actors can’t be incompetent or that incompetent people can’t act maliciously, it's just asserting that incompetence is so, so much more widespread than actual malice.
clumsysmurf 2y ago
Indeed, as Gary Kasparov eluded to "These are not the acts of people who expect to lose power any time soon, or ever." https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/02/putinization-america/681837/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/02/pu... or https://archive.is/l4kLV https://archive.is/l4kLV
- devin 2y ago
  Not sure why you took a downvote. I think it is plain to see that we are unlikely to have free and fair elections in 2028, possibly even the next cycle.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    That's exactly the attitude a number of right-wing people had after Trump's 2020 election loss.
    - oblio 2y ago
      The thing is, are these situations really comparable? Biden has just transferred power peacefully and gracefully, his supporters didn't initiate any coups. And after Trump's 2020 loss, Biden basically enacted a bunch of sensible policies, including continuing some reasonable Trump policies (some specific tariffs, for example). Trump in 2025 instead decided to ban paper straws (!!!!).
orblivion 2y ago
I think if your argument is that they're making hasty decisions, you've provided good evidence for that. But the remainder of the sentence you quoted was: > but an intentional plan to visit each government department and giving it a stab wound to let it bleed out and die over the course of the next year or two. If your argument is that they're trying to make agencies die, and you're using the above as evidence for this, then you'd have to convince me that they want the government to lose control of nuclear bombs or bird flu.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > If your argument is that they're trying to make agencies die, and you're using the above as evidence for this, then you'd have to convince me that they want the government to lose control of nuclear bombs or bird flu. I'm saying they want to get rid of government: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43218884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43218884
  - orblivion 2y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but unless they're literally ready to jump to anarcho-capitalism in the next four years I don't think they're trying to let the nuclear bombs go unattended. I think the specific examples you gave aren't your best examples to this point. If anything it's a counter-argument.
    - freen 2y ago
      There are US citizens, former employees of USAID, who have been abandoned after trying to stop a cholera outbreak in the middle of a civil war in South Sudan. With their families. Their security detail: fired. Their logistics team: fired. No water, no power, no fuel. Look: sufficiently advanced incompetence and/or carelessness is equivalent to malice. I don’t care if you WANT to attend to the nuclear weapons, if you are so unserious, or understaffed, or incompetent, or distracted, or whatever to fail to actually do the thing. Intent is irrelevant. Outcomes are everything.

csomar 2y ago

Given that they Kennedy retracted on the vaccine mandate suggests gross incompetence might be at play here.

kennysoona 2y ago
I normally defer to Hanlon's Razor, but with this administration it's 50/50 if their actions are due to incompetence or malice. The only thing we know is their intent is never to benefit the majority of the people they are meant to be serving.
- tedivm 2y ago
  I don't think we need to pick between incompetence and malice here. I think both apply to most of their actions.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  Select non-malicious but incompetent people to head departments, gives you plausible deniability when people claim that what's happening is malicious. "No, look, RFK Jr is sincere in his desire to help the American people." He's just really bad at it. Of course, that doesn't speak well to the judgment of the people at the top. They'll try and claim that RFK Jr did a fine job and it was the Deep State that caused the problems.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Probably exactly what will happen. “Oh, with the dramatic reduction in vaccinations the American people would have been so much healthier, but the Deep State sprayed measles from chemtrails just to make us look bad”
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  At this point, I don't see why it should matter if it's criminal negligence or malice. They know what they are doing is illegal. Or, if they don't, it's because they are actively insisting on not learning it, what shouldn't make any difference.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > I normally defer to Hanlon's Razor, but with this administration it's 50/50 if their actions are due to incompetence or malice. The incompetent people were hired / appointed[1] as a form of malice against the "Deep State" (read: civil service) specifically, and government and civil society in general. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
- jrflowers 2y ago
  Hanlon’s razor is funny because it assumes that malicious actors can’t be incompetent and incompetent people can’t act maliciously. It is a fun logical trick that functions by pretending that huge swathes of the population don’t exist, like a sort of inverted cognitive behavioral therapy exercise
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    I don't think it is assuming that malicious actors can’t be incompetent or that incompetent people can’t act maliciously, it's just asserting that incompetence is so, so much more widespread than actual malice.

clumsysmurf 2y ago

Indeed, as Gary Kasparov eluded to "These are not the acts of people who expect to lose power any time soon, or ever." https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/02/putinization-america/681837/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/02/pu... or https://archive.is/l4kLV https://archive.is/l4kLV

devin 2y ago
Not sure why you took a downvote. I think it is plain to see that we are unlikely to have free and fair elections in 2028, possibly even the next cycle.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  That's exactly the attitude a number of right-wing people had after Trump's 2020 election loss.
  - oblio 2y ago
    The thing is, are these situations really comparable? Biden has just transferred power peacefully and gracefully, his supporters didn't initiate any coups. And after Trump's 2020 loss, Biden basically enacted a bunch of sensible policies, including continuing some reasonable Trump policies (some specific tariffs, for example). Trump in 2025 instead decided to ban paper straws (!!!!).

orblivion 2y ago

I think if your argument is that they're making hasty decisions, you've provided good evidence for that. But the remainder of the sentence you quoted was: > but an intentional plan to visit each government department and giving it a stab wound to let it bleed out and die over the course of the next year or two. If your argument is that they're trying to make agencies die, and you're using the above as evidence for this, then you'd have to convince me that they want the government to lose control of nuclear bombs or bird flu.

throw0101c 2y ago
> If your argument is that they're trying to make agencies die, and you're using the above as evidence for this, then you'd have to convince me that they want the government to lose control of nuclear bombs or bird flu. I'm saying they want to get rid of government: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43218884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43218884
- orblivion 2y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but unless they're literally ready to jump to anarcho-capitalism in the next four years I don't think they're trying to let the nuclear bombs go unattended. I think the specific examples you gave aren't your best examples to this point. If anything it's a counter-argument.
  - freen 2y ago
    There are US citizens, former employees of USAID, who have been abandoned after trying to stop a cholera outbreak in the middle of a civil war in South Sudan. With their families. Their security detail: fired. Their logistics team: fired. No water, no power, no fuel. Look: sufficiently advanced incompetence and/or carelessness is equivalent to malice. I don’t care if you WANT to attend to the nuclear weapons, if you are so unserious, or understaffed, or incompetent, or distracted, or whatever to fail to actually do the thing. Intent is irrelevant. Outcomes are everything.