7 ms·

Saying "red tribe" is a pretty dead giveaway of, say, a certain way of thinking. George Soros or Bill Gates will never be able to buy their own department for

Saying "red tribe" is a pretty dead giveaway of, say, a certain way of thinking. George Soros or Bill Gates will never be able to buy their own department for reasons that the people with the tribalist lens can't seem to grasp: the democratic coalition is FAR more principled and fractured / diverse than the republican coalition. I can already hear people howl for evidence; for evidence, look no farther than the party platforms for the last few electoral cycles.

zazar 1y ago
[flagged]
- mac-attack 1y ago
  People call Elon a Nazi because of the salute he did, stuff he has said about Jewish people, pro-white nationalist dog whistles, etc. I feel like you also overlooked the context of Obama's severe cuts and reorg... it was coming out of the Great Financial Recession which was the worst economy the US had seen in ~100 years...
- hypeatei 1y ago
  > Obama did far more severe cuts and re-orgs in his second term. You fail to mention that Obama did this through legislation and actual proposals rather than giving random tech bros and billionaires access to government systems to stop payments on a whim. Did you even read your own links? > Nobody cared because we weren't in the sensationalist era where one becomes a "nazi" for wanting a smaller government. This is a strawman. No one is claiming that wanting government efficiency is the equivalent of being a Nazi. Although, there are plenty of other actions from Trump and his ilk that warrant that view. > Did you know that Obama deported more people than Trump as well? Was he somehow a fascist for respecting the border? I'm not sure what this has to do with DOGE but I'll bite: Did Obama send people to a foreign labor camp in El Salvador? Did Obama deport international students for the their protest against Israel? Did Obama create a detention facility called Alligator Alcatraz?
- Aurornis 1y ago
  This petty score keeping is an intentional dodge of the real problems: This administration is doing ham-fisted execution of their strategy and trying to go around the law wherever they can get away with it. Any country that enforces immigration laws (almost all of them) will be constantly deporting people. Saying a lot of people were deported under Obama is an intentional dodge around the glaring fact that we have masked ICE agents doing ham-fisted raids and doing extraordinarily dumb things like detaining factory workers at an important battery plant just because.
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    > and doing extraordinarily dumb things like detaining factory workers at an important battery plant just because Or people deployed and actively fighting wildfires.
- dangus 1y ago
  I don't think you realize how good your first link makes Obama look and how badly it supports your claims, did you even read it? Half that article is about cutting healthcare costs for the American people, which is a good thing that Republicans haven't had any results on since Nixon. The other half demonstrates very plainly that Obama worked with Congress to pass laws to streamline spending and cut out middlemen, and that's notable because DOGE completely circumvented congress who is supposed to be the sole possessor of the power of the purse. That part of the article pointed out that Obama cut the deficit by trillions, which of course Republicans have refused to do in the last few decades (with the Big Beautiful Bill and Tax Cut and Jobs Act both ballooning the deficit). The Clinton administration also worked with congress to implement its version of DOGE and had much more success: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/1237991516/planet-money-doge-government-size-rego https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/1237991516/planet-money-doge-... Bringing up deportations was not relevant to this discussion nor the article.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    >and that's notable because DOGE completely circumvented congress who is supposed to be the sole possessor of the power of the purse. Congress has the constitutional power of the purse but that refers specifically to raising and appropriating money[]. The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect. Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance. [] https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      Your own linked site says "Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government." But you said "The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money." Explain
- chris_wot 1y ago
  Obama didn’t bring in an external, unvetted team of 20 year olds to run amok and abjectly humiliate the Federal workforce. He also kept services running. And he did it within the law. Get all of that? That’s what he didn’t do that DOGE did do.
dimal 1y ago
A lot of things that seemed impossible a few years ago are now old hat. The Democrats wouldn’t be so hamfisted, but never say never. And my point wasn’t that the Democrats would. It’s that the Democrats could and may even be forced to, in order to win an election. If JD Vance is selling a department for $500M, from a game theoretical perspective, the Democrats may have no choice. The whole problem is that all the norms that allowed the republic to function are being stripped away, and this is one of the biggest violations of our norms to date, yet no one has even mentioned this aspect.
OkayPhysicist 1y ago
This makes a fair bit more sense when you realize that hierarchy and the resulting feudalist structures are basically the core tenets of right-wing ideology. On paper, the right should have a harder time working together: The fascists, theocrats, and kleptocrats have wildly divergent worldviews. However, more fundamental than any of their specific views, they all believe in rigid power hierarchies. Which means to bring one branch of the right into the fold of whichever group currently holds the most power, all they really have to do is win over the upper echelons of the weaker faction, and then secure them a place (not necessarily even that highly ranked of a place) within their power structure. Meanwhile, across the isle, a vague alignment in short term goals is basically all that keeps the left and the liberals together as a coalition. Whereas the right can say and do just about anything as long as it doesn't jeopardize their direct underlings' position in the overarching power structure, even small, strategic concessions can obliterate what little trust leaders have built up over the years.
intended 1y ago
Please note - Trump has a 92% approval rating amongst Republicans. It is tribal affiliation and tribal news channels at this point. Thinking otherwise is the luxury of assuming you have different problems, and of not checking your assumptions.
rsynnott 1y ago
> the democratic coalition is FAR more principled and fractured / diverse than the republican coalition. _Currently_. On the other hand, realistically, it's impossible to imagine this happening under, say, Bush (either version of Bush), and yet now here we are. Things change.

zazar 1y ago

[flagged]

mac-attack 1y ago
People call Elon a Nazi because of the salute he did, stuff he has said about Jewish people, pro-white nationalist dog whistles, etc. I feel like you also overlooked the context of Obama's severe cuts and reorg... it was coming out of the Great Financial Recession which was the worst economy the US had seen in ~100 years...
hypeatei 1y ago
> Obama did far more severe cuts and re-orgs in his second term. You fail to mention that Obama did this through legislation and actual proposals rather than giving random tech bros and billionaires access to government systems to stop payments on a whim. Did you even read your own links? > Nobody cared because we weren't in the sensationalist era where one becomes a "nazi" for wanting a smaller government. This is a strawman. No one is claiming that wanting government efficiency is the equivalent of being a Nazi. Although, there are plenty of other actions from Trump and his ilk that warrant that view. > Did you know that Obama deported more people than Trump as well? Was he somehow a fascist for respecting the border? I'm not sure what this has to do with DOGE but I'll bite: Did Obama send people to a foreign labor camp in El Salvador? Did Obama deport international students for the their protest against Israel? Did Obama create a detention facility called Alligator Alcatraz?
Aurornis 1y ago
This petty score keeping is an intentional dodge of the real problems: This administration is doing ham-fisted execution of their strategy and trying to go around the law wherever they can get away with it. Any country that enforces immigration laws (almost all of them) will be constantly deporting people. Saying a lot of people were deported under Obama is an intentional dodge around the glaring fact that we have masked ICE agents doing ham-fisted raids and doing extraordinarily dumb things like detaining factory workers at an important battery plant just because.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  > and doing extraordinarily dumb things like detaining factory workers at an important battery plant just because Or people deployed and actively fighting wildfires.
dangus 1y ago
I don't think you realize how good your first link makes Obama look and how badly it supports your claims, did you even read it? Half that article is about cutting healthcare costs for the American people, which is a good thing that Republicans haven't had any results on since Nixon. The other half demonstrates very plainly that Obama worked with Congress to pass laws to streamline spending and cut out middlemen, and that's notable because DOGE completely circumvented congress who is supposed to be the sole possessor of the power of the purse. That part of the article pointed out that Obama cut the deficit by trillions, which of course Republicans have refused to do in the last few decades (with the Big Beautiful Bill and Tax Cut and Jobs Act both ballooning the deficit). The Clinton administration also worked with congress to implement its version of DOGE and had much more success: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/1237991516/planet-money-doge-government-size-rego https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/1237991516/planet-money-doge-... Bringing up deportations was not relevant to this discussion nor the article.
- mothballed 1y ago
  >and that's notable because DOGE completely circumvented congress who is supposed to be the sole possessor of the power of the purse. Congress has the constitutional power of the purse but that refers specifically to raising and appropriating money[]. The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect. Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance. [] https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    Your own linked site says "Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government." But you said "The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money." Explain
chris_wot 1y ago
Obama didn’t bring in an external, unvetted team of 20 year olds to run amok and abjectly humiliate the Federal workforce. He also kept services running. And he did it within the law. Get all of that? That’s what he didn’t do that DOGE did do.

dimal 1y ago

A lot of things that seemed impossible a few years ago are now old hat. The Democrats wouldn’t be so hamfisted, but never say never. And my point wasn’t that the Democrats would. It’s that the Democrats could and may even be forced to, in order to win an election. If JD Vance is selling a department for $500M, from a game theoretical perspective, the Democrats may have no choice. The whole problem is that all the norms that allowed the republic to function are being stripped away, and this is one of the biggest violations of our norms to date, yet no one has even mentioned this aspect.

OkayPhysicist 1y ago

This makes a fair bit more sense when you realize that hierarchy and the resulting feudalist structures are basically the core tenets of right-wing ideology. On paper, the right should have a harder time working together: The fascists, theocrats, and kleptocrats have wildly divergent worldviews. However, more fundamental than any of their specific views, they all believe in rigid power hierarchies. Which means to bring one branch of the right into the fold of whichever group currently holds the most power, all they really have to do is win over the upper echelons of the weaker faction, and then secure them a place (not necessarily even that highly ranked of a place) within their power structure. Meanwhile, across the isle, a vague alignment in short term goals is basically all that keeps the left and the liberals together as a coalition. Whereas the right can say and do just about anything as long as it doesn't jeopardize their direct underlings' position in the overarching power structure, even small, strategic concessions can obliterate what little trust leaders have built up over the years.

intended 1y ago

Please note - Trump has a 92% approval rating amongst Republicans. It is tribal affiliation and tribal news channels at this point. Thinking otherwise is the luxury of assuming you have different problems, and of not checking your assumptions.

rsynnott 1y ago

> the democratic coalition is FAR more principled and fractured / diverse than the republican coalition. _Currently_. On the other hand, realistically, it's impossible to imagine this happening under, say, Bush (either version of Bush), and yet now here we are. Things change.