The DOGE train wreck is well known, lesser known is the impacts on the intelligence community, putting the nation at some of the greatest risk since the cold war ended
Do you blame Trump or the democrats who force candidates like Harris or Clinton as choices? The blame lies just as much with those who have an entirely unpopular view of how the country should function, forcing those in the middle to Trump/etc.
Of course, much of this is due to continued polarization, notably in cities where socialism has grown popular and in the rural areas, where MAGA is rampant.
Clinton, who won the majority of votes or Harris who in a few months forced Trump to a plurality win?
Both were admittedly weak and forced, but Clinton would have won had any one of number of factors been different, and Harris walked into a tire fire and wasn’t the right candidate no matter what.
Democrats certainly need to field a better slate, but the fact people voted for self immolation can’t be attributed to a lesser of two evils argument - because Trump was never a compelling leader, and he has never been popular - hence his inability to ever secure a majority and operating the two most unpopular presidencies in modern history. He was voted into power by people who were sold on “at least he’s different,” which is more of an idiocratic solution to the current politic than anything else.
The answer is as the article says, it’s both national suicide and murder by the administration. There is no point in second guessing it, a technical victory and a plurality chose a national policy of global stupidity, taking a wrecking ball to the complex international system.
The hope I hold is this weakens the presidency irrevocably as Congress takes control again and places the executive in its proper functionary role. It’s abdication over history as Washingtonian presidents set a higher and higher bar of relative trustworthiness was fraught and stupid, and is IMO the actual manifestation of exceptionalism. And we f’ed around and found out, as MAGA is so fond of.
Nope. Just people who want candidates who can beat terrible people like Trump. It really isn't that hard. Biden did it.
We live in a two party system. Winning elections is important. Fielding left-wing candidates with no accomplishments makes Trump happen. It's not that complicated.
>Fielding left-wing candidates with no accomplishments makes Trump happen. It's not that complicated.
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and a Senator from New York, while Kamala Harris was a District Attorney and Attorney General, and then Senator for California before serving as Vice President.
Also only in the fetid delirium of Republicans and Trumpists are either of them even remotely left-wing.
The typical American views a businessman who built (and lied and stole) a company as more experienced than senator who signs mostly bills that rename post offices.
The Democrats continue to insist that this isn't the case. And keep losing.
So the typical American, when selecting for a political job, holds a man with no political experience but who was so corrupt and inept as a businessman he managed to bankrupt a casino in higher esteem than candidates with actual success and experience in the field selected for?
Fine. The typical American is an idiot and they get what they deserve, then.
>The Democrats continue to insist that this isn't the case. And keep losing.
It shouldn't be the case, the Democrats are correct (at least about that, although I suspect they never actually "insisted" on anything of the sort,) Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton were more qualified than Trump and deserved to win, and I hope this whole clownshow of a country burns to the ground.
I leave the floor to you, matchbok3. I've exposed myself to Hacker News for too long and I need time in the screaming box.
Given a choice between Trump and Clinton, or Trump and Harris, the best choice is extremely obvious. A sack of pet rocks would do better than either Clinton or Harris. That doesn't mean Trump would do better than them.
America is committing suicide because funding for extracurriculars is being pulled? Seems dramatic…
Also, if you want to talk about dismantling democracy, how about the dismantling of the constitution that occurred on Pres. Biden’s watch during COVID? Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, no unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.
Does the author realize that the cuts to USAID, foodstamps, welfare, and other entitlements and waste are a good thing?
We just surpassed $40 trillion in debt, the bond market is blaring warning signs, and yet the government just keeps wasting money on both democrat and republican causes.
We shouldn't be wasting money on a $47k on a "transgender opera" in Colombia, $100B in food stamps, or $40B on the Iran War.
Both republicans and democrats are jeopardizing the one thing that truly matters in our government: the ability to pay its obligations. Whether it's wasting money on a Tomahawk or a welfare queen, it's reprehensible.
With our deficit near $2 trillion dollars, nobody is worried about the government making a profit. Anyone reasonable is just worried about it being able to pay its already massive debt without triggering hyperinflation or the collapse the world's economy.
If you look at it in terms of abstract benefit rather than profit, it makes sense. We shouldn't be doing things where the cost is much more than the benefit.
A lot of political issues sort of boil down to how you estimate the upside of things.
Are you sure cuts to these are a good thing? Both right now and into the future?
The extensive changes are, and will continue, making changes to a world order of which the US was already at the top (Trump seemed to think that the US wasn't at the top or wanted to be _moar_ top). The extent of the changes is already chipping away at the foundations of US dominance. Ironically.
I don't care whether the US falls from it's position, but I do care about the inevitable extended period of global instability of the various powers competing to take the top position.
USAID was utterly ineffective at building or maintaining the US's position in the world order. Look at the success of the Chinese Belt and Road initiative in terms of actually accomplishing geopolitical goals through soft power actually looks like (eg fostering trade, access to resources, pulling countries into your sphere of influence).
Food stamps and welfare as currently structured literally negatively contributed to the US's position: enabling generations of Americans to sponge off the system, rather than work and contribute, incentivizing claiming disability and having children you can't afford/care for, etc.
Cutting these things would be akin to pulling out from Afghanistan. It looks messy, nobody wanted to do it, but continuing it was just sunk cost fallacy.
I'm kind of surprised by the Trump-apologia commentary thus far but, ironically maybe, it makes the article all the more pertinent.
Second-order effects seem particularly difficult to grasp.
>The radical shrinking of the federal government under Trump has happened at a speed and on a scale that is unprecedented.
Citation needed
He shrunk the federal workforce by 15% in his first year in office. This has never happened before.
Both the white house and their opponents agree on these numbers, so not sure why you wouldn't.
What? Don't beg the question.
https://data.opm.gov/explore-data/analytics/workforce-size-a...
The DOGE train wreck is well known, lesser known is the impacts on the intelligence community, putting the nation at some of the greatest risk since the cold war ended
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZVhclACAIw
This is one of many stories about the damage done to intel comm, you'll also learn about their trans hypocrisy in this video
Do you blame Trump or the democrats who force candidates like Harris or Clinton as choices? The blame lies just as much with those who have an entirely unpopular view of how the country should function, forcing those in the middle to Trump/etc.
Of course, much of this is due to continued polarization, notably in cities where socialism has grown popular and in the rural areas, where MAGA is rampant.
Do I blame the people with all the power or the people with none? Hmm.
Figuring out how we got here is how we figure out how to get out of here.
What is there to figure out? Elections have consequences and the country is learning that the hard way... again.
How we got here is Obama got elected and white people lost their goddamn minds about it.
Clinton, who won the majority of votes or Harris who in a few months forced Trump to a plurality win?
Both were admittedly weak and forced, but Clinton would have won had any one of number of factors been different, and Harris walked into a tire fire and wasn’t the right candidate no matter what.
Democrats certainly need to field a better slate, but the fact people voted for self immolation can’t be attributed to a lesser of two evils argument - because Trump was never a compelling leader, and he has never been popular - hence his inability to ever secure a majority and operating the two most unpopular presidencies in modern history. He was voted into power by people who were sold on “at least he’s different,” which is more of an idiocratic solution to the current politic than anything else.
The answer is as the article says, it’s both national suicide and murder by the administration. There is no point in second guessing it, a technical victory and a plurality chose a national policy of global stupidity, taking a wrecking ball to the complex international system.
The hope I hold is this weakens the presidency irrevocably as Congress takes control again and places the executive in its proper functionary role. It’s abdication over history as Washingtonian presidents set a higher and higher bar of relative trustworthiness was fraught and stupid, and is IMO the actual manifestation of exceptionalism. And we f’ed around and found out, as MAGA is so fond of.
America hasn't seen a socialist yet. They would probably kill them in the street on election day.
Ah yes, everything Trump does is actually other people's fault.
Take the criticism and pressure off the abuser, and point it at their opponents.
This talking point keeps getting pushed around on social media and I can't help but think it's manufactured and promulgated by right wing entities.
Nope. Just people who want candidates who can beat terrible people like Trump. It really isn't that hard. Biden did it.
We live in a two party system. Winning elections is important. Fielding left-wing candidates with no accomplishments makes Trump happen. It's not that complicated.
>Fielding left-wing candidates with no accomplishments makes Trump happen. It's not that complicated.
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and a Senator from New York, while Kamala Harris was a District Attorney and Attorney General, and then Senator for California before serving as Vice President.
Also only in the fetid delirium of Republicans and Trumpists are either of them even remotely left-wing.
The typical American views a businessman who built (and lied and stole) a company as more experienced than senator who signs mostly bills that rename post offices.
The Democrats continue to insist that this isn't the case. And keep losing.
So the typical American, when selecting for a political job, holds a man with no political experience but who was so corrupt and inept as a businessman he managed to bankrupt a casino in higher esteem than candidates with actual success and experience in the field selected for?
Fine. The typical American is an idiot and they get what they deserve, then.
>The Democrats continue to insist that this isn't the case. And keep losing.
It shouldn't be the case, the Democrats are correct (at least about that, although I suspect they never actually "insisted" on anything of the sort,) Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton were more qualified than Trump and deserved to win, and I hope this whole clownshow of a country burns to the ground.
I leave the floor to you, matchbok3. I've exposed myself to Hacker News for too long and I need time in the screaming box.
Hillary Clinton, and Kamala “Copmala” Harris were left wing candidates with no experience?
How do you justify that statement at all? Especially when you can point to Trump as a candidate with no experience who won.
She was perceived by middle America as a left-wing candidate coming from a left-wing state.
Not really sure what you are arguing. The polls all showed this.
> She
I mentioned two people the same as you, differentiate between them please
> was perceived by middle America as a left-wing candidate coming from a left-wing state.
Thank you for explaining one half of your statement, how do you explain the “no accomplishments” part of your statement?
If you are going to rely on polls again then I’ll ask in advance how reality matters at all and it isn’t just down to vibes?
Given a choice between Trump and Clinton, or Trump and Harris, the best choice is extremely obvious. A sack of pet rocks would do better than either Clinton or Harris. That doesn't mean Trump would do better than them.
America is committing suicide because funding for extracurriculars is being pulled? Seems dramatic…
Also, if you want to talk about dismantling democracy, how about the dismantling of the constitution that occurred on Pres. Biden’s watch during COVID? Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, no unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.
Maybe review who was president in 2020 during the most severe phases of the restrictions.
Is the author under the impression that foodborne diseases didn't spread under previous administrations? There's dozens of examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foodborne_illness_outb...
Does the author realize that the cuts to USAID, foodstamps, welfare, and other entitlements and waste are a good thing?
We just surpassed $40 trillion in debt, the bond market is blaring warning signs, and yet the government just keeps wasting money on both democrat and republican causes.
We shouldn't be wasting money on a $47k on a "transgender opera" in Colombia, $100B in food stamps, or $40B on the Iran War.
Both republicans and democrats are jeopardizing the one thing that truly matters in our government: the ability to pay its obligations. Whether it's wasting money on a Tomahawk or a welfare queen, it's reprehensible.
The idea that the point of government is to somehow make a profit seems absurd to me. Any money the government makes is by definition money wasted.
With our deficit near $2 trillion dollars, nobody is worried about the government making a profit. Anyone reasonable is just worried about it being able to pay its already massive debt without triggering hyperinflation or the collapse the world's economy.
If you look at it in terms of abstract benefit rather than profit, it makes sense. We shouldn't be doing things where the cost is much more than the benefit.
A lot of political issues sort of boil down to how you estimate the upside of things.
> USAID, foodstamps, welfare
Are you sure cuts to these are a good thing? Both right now and into the future?
The extensive changes are, and will continue, making changes to a world order of which the US was already at the top (Trump seemed to think that the US wasn't at the top or wanted to be _moar_ top). The extent of the changes is already chipping away at the foundations of US dominance. Ironically.
I don't care whether the US falls from it's position, but I do care about the inevitable extended period of global instability of the various powers competing to take the top position.
USAID was utterly ineffective at building or maintaining the US's position in the world order. Look at the success of the Chinese Belt and Road initiative in terms of actually accomplishing geopolitical goals through soft power actually looks like (eg fostering trade, access to resources, pulling countries into your sphere of influence).
Food stamps and welfare as currently structured literally negatively contributed to the US's position: enabling generations of Americans to sponge off the system, rather than work and contribute, incentivizing claiming disability and having children you can't afford/care for, etc.
Cutting these things would be akin to pulling out from Afghanistan. It looks messy, nobody wanted to do it, but continuing it was just sunk cost fallacy.
[dead]