Engineers between 19 and 24, most linked to Musk’s companies, are playing a key role as he seizes control of federal infrastructure.
Both Bobba and Coristine are listed in internal OPM records reviewed by WIRED as “experts” at OPM, reporting directly to Amanda Scales, its new chief of staff. Scales previously worked on talent for xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence company, and as part of Uber’s talent acquisition team, per LinkedIn. Employees at GSA tell WIRED that Coristine has appeared on calls where workers were made to go over code they had written and justify their jobs. WIRED previously reported that Coristine was added to a call with GSA staff members using a nongovernment Gmail address. Employees were not given an explanation as to who he was or why he was on the calls.
Farritor, who per sources has a working GSA email address, is a former intern at SpaceX, Musk’s space company, and currently a Thiel Fellow after, according to his LinkedIn, dropping out of the University of Nebraska—Lincoln. While in school, he was part of an award-winning team that deciphered portions of an ancient Greek scroll.
Kliger, whose LinkedIn lists him as a special adviser to the director of OPM and who is listed in internal records reviewed by WIRED as a special adviser to the director for information technology, attended UC Berkeley until 2020; most recently, according to his LinkedIn, he worked for the AI company Databricks. His Substack includes a post titled “The Curious Case of Matt Gaetz: How the Deep State Destroys Its Enemies,” as well as another titled “Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense: The Warrior Washington Fears.”
Killian, also known as Cole Killian, has a working email associated with DOGE, where he is currently listed as a volunteer, according to internal records reviewed by WIRED. According to a copy of his now-deleted résumé obtained by WIRED, he attended McGill University through at least 2021 and graduated high school in 2019. An archived copy of his now-deleted personal website indicates that he worked as an engineer at Jump Trading, which specializes in algorithmic and high-frequency financial trades.
Shaotran told Business Insider in September that he was a senior at Harvard studying computer science and also the founder of an OpenAI-backed startup, Energize AI. Shaotran was the runner-up in a hackathon held by xAI, Musk’s AI company. In the Business Insider article, Shaotran says he received a $100,000 grant from OpenAI to build his scheduling assistant, Spark.
Got a Tip?
Are you a current or former employee with the Office of Personnel Management or another government agency impacted by Elon Musk? We’d like to hear from you. Using a nonwork phone or computer, contact Vittoria Elliott at vittoria_elliott@wired.com or securely at velliott88.18 on Signal.
“To the extent these individuals are exercising what would otherwise be relatively significant managerial control over two very large agencies that deal with very complex topics,” says Nick Bednar, a professor at University of Minnesota’s school of law, “it is very unlikely they have the expertise to understand either the law or the administrative needs that surround these agencies.”
Sources tell WIRED that Bobba, Coristine, Farritor, and Shaotran all currently have working GSA emails and A-suite level clearance at the GSA, which means that they work out of the agency’s top floor and have access to all physical spaces and IT systems, according a source with knowledge of the GSA’s clearance protocols. The source, who spoke to WIRED on the condition of anonymity because they fear retaliation, says they worry that the new teams could bypass the regular security clearance protocols to access the agency’s sensitive compartmented information facility, as the Trump administration has already granted temporary security clearances to unvetted people.
This is in addition to Coristine and Bobba being listed as “experts” working at OPM. Bednar says that while staff can be loaned out between agencies for special projects or to work on issues that might cross agency lines, it’s not exactly common practice.
“This is consistent with the pattern of a lot of tech executives who have taken certain roles of the administration,” says Bednar. “This raises concerns about regulatory capture and whether these individuals may have preferences that don’t serve the American public or the federal government.”
Additional reporting by Zoë Schiffer and Tim Marchman.
Read the original article
Comments
By DemocracyFTW2 2025-02-0220:45 By jimkleiber 2025-02-047:029 reply Well I hope in the (very near) future we decide we want the executive branch to have less power, so as to protect ourselves from a unitary executive who goes rogue. Yes it may be less efficient, but more resilient.
This drive for uber efficiency can 1) make government more fragile (see toilet paper supply issues during the pandemic) and 2) be a slippery slope to dehumanization (see paper clip maximizing problem).
The problem is that we painted ourselves into a this corner long ago. Even if Congress wasn't generally paralyzed by bad-faith partisan fighting, the House and Senate are not equipped to do even a small fraction of what the executive branch does today.
If we removed much of the executive branch's power, it wouldn't be "less efficient". The government just wouldn't do anything.
Some people (current GOP) seems to think this would be a good thing.
By jimkleiber 2025-02-049:272 reply Agreed. If government provides fewer services, companies can provide more services at a profit. Why have public (non-profit) education when you can have private (highly profitable) education? Who needs public (non-profit) health insurance when you can have private (highly profitable) health insurance?
The list can go on and on.
By 3D30497420 2025-02-0410:381 reply Exactly.
There's probably some theory about power being like the conservation of energy, in that it doesn't get destroyed, just transformed or moved. Take power away from the government and that power doesn't just make people more free, it just goes somewhere else. Clearly the intent is to move that power from the government (which is at least nominally meant to protect citizens) to companies/the rich.
By jimkleiber 2025-02-0412:191 reply That's how I see it as well. Government in theory should protect the citizens, which I assume often means the consumers and the workers. But maybe capitalism run amok is when capitalists accumulate the power and use it to strong-arm the government into liking the corporate shareholders (capitalists?) more than the citizens.
By ModernMech 2025-02-0423:293 reply > capitalism run amok is when capitalists accumulate the power and use it to strong-arm the government into liking the corporate shareholders (capitalists?) more than the citizens.
This is pretty much the definition of fascism.
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini, famous fascist.
By michaeljsmith 2025-02-068:17 Mussolini used the word 'corporation' in a different sense to the modern sense of a public company. He was referring instead to different sectors of society, something like a 'guild'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatis...
Not exactly. I'd say that is a self-serving quote to whitewash fascism.
The narrow definition of corporatism is basically just the public-private interweaving of government. Communism is just as much corporatist as fascism -- the main difference being that in communism the trade bodies are considered part of the government rather than part of the industry.
Fascism is more specific because it also encompasses fostering/breeding tribalistic tendencies (bigotry, nationalism, i.e. "othering") in society at large. In contrast, corporatism doesn't prescribe how the rest of society interacts.
By ModernMech 2025-02-0617:58 Maybe you have a more positive view of corporations than me, because calling fascism a government of by and for corporations does not whitewash it at all for me.
By jimkleiber 2025-02-057:442 reply Whoa, I was unaware, thank you for sharing this
I had the same reaction, but then some cursory searching led me to this discussion on the "Talk" page for Wikiquote's entry on Mussolini which casts some doubt on the accuracy of the attribution and/or translation of this line:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Benito_Mussolini#Fascism_...
By theendisney 2025-02-082:18 From there:
> At its core, the quoted saying is incompatible with fascism and frankly nonsensical. Under fascism, the state uses the market efficiency of capitalism to regulate and control the economy, namely by concentrating market shares to a relatively few large corporations into cartels, which in turn the fascist state has direct control over. Whereas, corporatism is state control by large interest groups, commonly pictured as large multi-national corporations with monopolistic powers. In other words, the controlling party under corporatism is the reverse of that under fascism."Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State."The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile
By merry_flame 2025-02-087:47 Not true though!
In Italian, corporativismo has a distinct meaning that is unrelated to the concept of commercial corporations. It refers to a system of collaboration between social groups, represented through joint associations of employers and workers. Essentially, it is a state-aligned alternative to independent trade unions, a "national syndicalism" of sorts.
The quote itself doesn’t appear to be a mistranslation—it just doesn’t seem to exist. (https://politicalresearch.org/2005/01/12/mussolini-corporate...)
Muskotrumpia may excel in performance-based state capture, but fascism it is not. The anti-state culture of the U.S. clashes with the "everything for the state" ethos that defines fascism. We're simply entering textbook Caesarism territory.
By ashoeafoot 2025-02-0418:22 and it does https://top-of-the-poops.org/
By biohcacker84 2025-02-074:53 Most conservatives and Libertarians from all times think that.
A minority of those on the right, don't.
By trod1234 2025-02-0719:24 How would we protect ourselves when the rule of law is non-functional?
This definition is quite literally the only check to balance power available to the average person, at least when it worked. There is no longer equality under the law which is dependent on the other components which have also degraded.
Congress is non-responsive to their constituencies.
We are stuck in a positive feedback loop, eventually when the abuses are great society will fall back to the natural state prior to the social contract. These will not be peaceful times.
After seeing Bush in office, the sensible thing to do would have been to reduce presidential power. Nobody bothered. Then again after Trump. Biden didn't do a damn thing to reduce presidential power, knowing what happened and what could happen. Way too late. The judiciary and congress are now both subservient to the president.
By ModernMech 2025-02-0423:451 reply Well, for his part Biden's DOJ did argue in court against the idea of blanket presidential immunity. SCOTUS disagreed, said POTUS needed more power.
For Congress' part, they did pass laws that make a lot of what Trump is doing now with impoundment of congressional funds, and firing inspectors general explicitly illegal. He's doing it anyway.
But the reason Trump is able to do what he's doing now comes down to the structure of the DOJ being an executive branch he controls. Combined with his immunity from SCOTUS. This means he can argue anything he does isn't a crime, no one will investigate or prosecute him, and he can pardon anyone acting in his direction / direct his DOJ to not prosecute them.
Nothing Biden or Democrats could do about this, because at the end of the day, Republicans decided they deserve this power, and they grabbed it for themselves. It was always there for the taking, they just needed to convince themselves with words and court decisions and speeches that they had the right.
"Nothing Biden or Democrats could do about this"
I think with some amount of imagination, they could have done something about it.
By ModernMech 2025-02-061:12 "imagination" here is an euphemism for lawlessness. Democrats believe in democracy. This whole plan requires Trump exerting full control over the DOJ and FBI rather than what is typically done which is allow them to act independently.
By wnc3141 2025-02-0717:17 It's hard to unwind that clock. The next admin will may leverage that consolidated power to undo trump harms, but also see the benefits of keeping that power. I pray congress mandates the political independence of certain federal agencies (FBI, doj etc)
There are certainly sympathetic federal judges, including on the supreme court, but as a whole the judiciary is not (yet) owned
The supreme court sure did take power away from the executive in Sacket v EPA, Ohio v EPA, and Biden v Nebraska, but it's likely that reasoning only applies to liberal presidents for the 6-3 conservative federalist society majority.
Repealing the Chevron Deference?
Might be a good thing that it would enable society to change faster because bureaucrats are slow to respond.
Then again, might not be the welcome change we want.
By greggyb 2025-02-082:49 Repealing Chevron deference implies that everything which used to be left to regulatory agencies must now be passed via legislation or litigated in court. Which of those sounds like faster change?
Biden didn't have the power to reduce his own power. Congress would have, but they're not interested in doing that.
By jimkleiber 2025-02-049:293 reply Because they see themselves as Democrats and Republicans more than they see themselves as Members of Congress. The identity/loyalty issue seems to be the main problem.
If they see themselves first as Members of Congress, then they should try to seek more power for Congress, not for their parties.
By pseudalopex 2025-02-0420:202 reply 219 Democrats and 1 Republican voted to limit presidential power. 0 Democrats and 208 Republicans voted against it.[1]
Too bad the bill had things unrelated to limiting the presidential power like
> requires a candidate for President or Vice President to provide copies of tax returns for the 10 most recent taxable years to the Federal Election Commission.
> establishes a program to support states and localities transition to ranked choice voting systems.
While things that I support, it frustrates me that congress can't propose bills that are hyper focused on one issue.
By SmirkingRevenge 2025-02-0515:35 I don't think those line items would have made the difference either way. Until the turbo-filibuster we have today is curtailed, most legislation is DOA from the jump.
Congress has slowly abdicated its power to the other two branches of government over the decades. As a consequence, it's become more and more performative over time. This reality ends up changing the type of people who even seek high office in the first place. Legislators get replaced by social media influencers.
At this point, congress is primarily a judge appointment machine.
And civic institutions that actually want to get things done, adjust accordingly. They spend less time drafting bills and lobbying congress, and more time fighting for change through the courts or by lobbying the executive directly.
By entropicdrifter 2025-02-0621:14 Pork Barrel is the term you're thinking of, but generally speaking that applies to spending that gets slapped onto unrelated bills, not necessarily to more general bloat like this stuff. Riders is probably the more accurate term
By jimkleiber 2025-02-057:50 I'll check it out. But the fact that it was mostly split along party lines says to me that they still have more loyalty to their party than branch
By SmirkingRevenge 2025-02-0420:431 reply The vast majority of congressional seats (both chambers) are safe seats and can't reasonably be flipped to the other party unless there is massive upheaval.
The real elections for those seats happen in partisan primaries, where hyper-partisan ideologues are over represented. The electoral danger for most members of congress therefore comes from primary challengers catering to those ideological primary voters, and so incumbents have to defend their seats by being more partisan than the primary challengers. And so the partisanship keeps ratcheting up and up.
The Republican party has been totally consumed by this and is now just a hollowed out cult of personality. The only way most Republicans can keep their seats is through total loyalty to Trump. Otherwise they get primaried.
The extreme filibuster we have today also makes most legislation impossible - so the job of a member of congress has become more and more performative.
At the same time, the population as a whole is sorting itself into like minded enclaves. Red areas are getting redder and blue areas are getting bluer.
If we could somehow get rid of partisan primaries, the filibuster, and expand the house by several factors, we could improve the situation. But it's all so broken already, I don't know if we can get there.
By disgruntledphd2 2025-02-0814:411 reply > If we could somehow get rid of partisan primaries, the filibuster, and expand the house by several factors
Honestly, just fixing the absurd gerrymandering (on both sides) would help with this. In basically every other developed country the governments have no powers to draw the electoral boundaries, which seems to work better.
By SmirkingRevenge 2025-02-0818:59 Getting rid of gerrymandering is certainly the right thing to do, but surprisingly it won't be as effective at unwinding the mess as you'd think. "The Big Sort" is a big reason why (https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081295373/the-big-sort-ameri...).
Doing something like expanding the house of representatives to several times it's current size would probably help much more.
All these things are a bit academic though, since neither policy is very feasible.
By trod1234 2025-02-0719:52 > The identity/loyalty issue seems to be the main problem.
It always has been. Even back in Rome there were the plebeians and the patricians. Demagogues rose to power based on party lines, corruption grew, and then Rome fell.
What we are seeing today is what naturally happens when you fail to teach future leaders history, and instead they are taught, but this time it will be different.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/politics/house-vote-protect-o...
The House passed this Act in 2021 to reduce the presidents power, but Biden never asked the senate to act on it. Reducing his own power wasn’t a priority for him, he spent his political capital on pushing for other laws.
By pseudalopex 2025-02-0420:22 Are senators unable to act independently?
The article alluded to a Republican filibuster as the barrier to passing the senate.
Have you considered reducing the overall scope of the federal government rather than just the executive branch?
By jimkleiber 2025-02-057:472 reply And have the scope picked up by state and local governments (or even a global one)? Or just let corporations make the rules?
I see the government doing at least two things: setting rules and providing services. Do you want fewer rules or fewer services? Or something else?
By biohcacker84 2025-02-074:57 Yes, state and local should pick up. The closer to the people a government is, the better it is.
I want the fewest rules that create the most fair economy. And I know very few service better in the hands of government. And that includes bridges:
By tonymet 2025-02-0521:13 In the USA the general scope for federal & state has expanded, with Federal having the most growth since about 16th Amendment. US code & regulations has expanded 1000x , cost per capita is 15000x
I only make the point that there is a broad spectrum of functional scopes for the government, and rather than looking at shifting the scope around, another possibility would be to revert the scope to sustainable levels
By afpx 2025-02-073:58 I thought that was their strategy, though? Dismantle the executive branch to the point where the president has little power.
By onetimeusename 2025-02-0421:07 What about protecting ourselves from a biased bureaucracy who use their power for their own political ends? There is a history of this happening now like the IRS scandal and I am surprised how quiet people are about the mass migration event into the country from 2020-2024. It's to the point where people actually say it's just a conspiracy theory and disinformation despite it being a primary concern of most voters according to polls. It's hard to argue that DHS and other bureaucracies were completely innocent. At best they were negligent and incompetent but I think most people know they took steps to make illegal immigration and asylum claims easier to do and help fund immigration routes. This wasn't a platform Biden ran on. He did not win a democratic mandate to open up asylum claims to basically anyone who arrived and grant temporary protected status somewhat arbitrarily. I am surprised no one is concerned about un-elected people being able to do all this and escaping any responsibility.
By biohcacker84 2025-02-074:51 I guess it took Trump to make Liberals want a smaller executive government.
Toilet paper supply issues were not an example of an efficiency problem, they were misinformation creating a demand shock.
Your average supermarket has limited shelf space and stocks to the level that it will reliably clear shelves before new supply turns up, or things spoil.
If a whole much of people just buy one extra pack that week, this can easily empty the shelves... Which then gets posted to social media to imply a supply problem, which then prompts people to increase their buying rate.
There's no solution to this other then education: there was no supply issue, and never was. Any "solution" would be concluding that a supermarket should devote an absurd amount of shelf space to toilet paper, just in case misinformation goes viral again.
By giancarlostoro 2025-02-0419:15 I remember seeing a video of a person in a warehouse making fun of the panic, the warehouse was full of more toilet paper than you knew what to do with. TP companies were probably happy, and the smart move is not to send way more supply than a store can contain, because if demand dies, now you have too much just sitting there. It's much cheaper for them to keep it at their warehouses.
By jimkleiber 2025-02-047:371 reply From my understanding, toilet paper is produced for commercial and residential purposes. As people stopped going to the office (and restaurants and malls, etc), people stopped using commercial toilet paper and started using more residential toilet paper.
What I read at the time also said that it's very hard for a plant to shift from making commercial to residential toilet paper, that the margins are paper thin (pun intended) and so it would take a lot of time and money to retool.
That's the explanation for why they couldn't just "order more toilet paper" to refill the store shelves.
But that wasn't the cause of the problem: the cause of the problem was people thinking "oh I'm not sure about a shortage, better buy an extra pack" (I know we did) for just one week...and then someone posts an "empty store shelves!!!" image on social media...which in turn prompts another group of people to do the same at another store, and then the idiot-brigade scalpers get involved. There's still no actual shortage though! The amount of toilet paper being produced is the same, the consumption rate is the same, people have just changed their stockpiling preference and the rate at which they do is spreading faster then any conceivable supply chain adjustment. But the actual consumption rate hasn't changed at all.
The idiot-brigade scalpers are worth commenting on because IMO there's a second factor which usually turns up: it's kind of fun to "buy out the supermarket" of some good. Like there's a child-like glee of going "I'll totally buy all of it" but most people don't consider that you can do this for any one item in the supermarket for like, $300 on the spot. It's just there's no reason too - partly because it's the most expensive possible way to buy almost anything.
By amluto 2025-02-0410:28 > There's still no actual shortage though! The amount of toilet paper being produced is the same, the consumption rate is the same, people have just changed their stockpiling preference
You seem to have entirely missed the point of the comment you’re replying to. The consumption rate of residential toilet paper increased. Have you seen actual commercial toilet paper and considered its texture and, more critically, the size and shape of the rolls? While it’s possible for someone to awkwardly wipe using a monster roll of commercial paper at home, the commercial roll is not really a desirable substitute for residential TP.
By dkkergoog 2025-02-0617:20 [dead]
They have interesting pedigrees: Meta, Palantir, Neuralink, xAI, SpaceX, Databricks, Energize AI.
It seems clear where this is going. Data mining and algorithmic (claimed!) efficiency improvements while working on an essential and critical production system.
Since these people claim that "AI" does not need to respect privacy and copyright, perhaps they'll also train a model on this.
Where are the Democrats on all this? There is hardly any opposition. Are they not interrupting their enemy while he is making mistakes? That would be the only explanation.
Like Democratic elected officials? They lost. They have no power. They don’t control any branch of government.
They have as much ability to pass laws as you or I personally do. They have as much ability to hand down a Supreme Court or direct law enforcement as you or I personally do. None. Where are we? Complaining on social media I guess.
I’m quite frustrated why my elected officials as well but it is kind of hard to blame them when we don’t give them any actual power to wield.
By maximilianburke 2025-02-0321:522 reply Sure, but there's other things they can do. They can all stop trying to achieve bipartisan support on things, as the republicans do when they're in the minority. Senators can withdraw their unanimous consent. They can vote against everything. They can drag a bunch of reporters over to Treasury and start loudly asking questions
It sounds like some are finding a clue, like the ones who stomped down to USAID with reporters in tow today. They need to do more of this.
Just because they can't pass legislation doesn't mean they are out of ideas.
What you can do is write to or call them. Ask them to vote no on every senate confirmation. Ask them to not provide unanimous consent. Ask them to make a scene. Demand answers!
> They can vote against everything.
Have they voted on a single thing yet except the Laken Riley Act? (Which they probably shouldn't have done, but anyway.) This administration is not waiting on Congress to do anything.
But that aside, I agree that they need to start getting back attention. Being absolutely silent except for individuals saying things that are only reported on Bluesky is not enough to be taking back control of attention.
By maximilianburke 2025-02-0323:54 > Have they voted on a single thing yet except the Laken Riley Act?
I mean on things like confirmations, but when bills start coming up reps need to go full on toddler mode and say no to everything.
They need to read the Mitch McConnell book on gumming up the works of government and grind everything to a halt until the madness stops.
> But that aside, I agree that they need to start getting back attention. Being absolutely silent except for individuals saying things that are only reported on Bluesky is not enough to be taking back control of attention.
I completely agree. Social media doesn't help anything, unless they're live streaming themselves daring the people obstructing Treasury to arrest them.
This isn't a "business as usual" moment, this is a five-alarm-fire moment.
By bufferoverflow 2025-02-040:044 reply And why did they lose?
By ashoeafoot 2025-02-138:22 They ignored economic problems for a majority of the population similar to the republicans for 20 years and focused on projects(wars) and culture war topics that are big mostly for the wealthy elite offspring of the ever shrinking middle class. They are by definition unable to act, all they want, left,right,center, is to conserve longer,slow down the decay.
By theossuary 2025-02-041:212 reply Propaganda, mostly. Conservatives have gained control of most Media outlets, and have been using them to launder consent. It's incredible that we've given Democrats absolutely no power, they can do literally nothing, and yet they're still somehow to blame for what Republicans are doing.
By latency-guy2 2025-02-047:03 Which ones?
Democrats received more money than Republicans from big tech and media for a very long time, including the most recent presidential election. Are big media stupid for donating more to their enemies than who they purportedly support?
Your other option is admitting that Democrats had previously owned the media and doing precisely the thing you're accusing Conservatives of doing. You definitely cannot claim they did not seeing the checks written out to DNC and other PACs alongside the board seats from previous administrations.
By bufferoverflow 2025-02-0421:141 reply I doubt it was propaganda. If you look at the polls, the most important issues have been the economy, the immigration and the violent crime. All 3 of which have been absolutely disastrous for the Biden/Harris administration.
And people voted accordingly, and correctly.
Biden's approval rating is 39%, disapproval at 58%.
Polling on particular issues can be shifted by propaganda, so this isn’t a particularly strong argument against the idea.
Although, I’m not sure what propaganda really means in this context anyway, I mean, “the economy” is a pretty abstract thing so people engage with it mostly through reporting of various sorts. The decision of what aspects of the economy to focus on could be seen as propaganda.
The admin plays in a global economy which is ridiculously complex, so there’s always room for it to be doing as well as possible when my guy is in charge, underperform expectations when the bad guy is in charge.
By bufferoverflow 2025-02-0423:082 reply When we speak about these 3 issues, there's no need for any propaganda.
Violent crime is out of control.
Illegal immigration is out of control.
Purchasing power of the population went down a lot, while average salaries haven't grown (or dropped significantly in some areas).
By entropicdrifter 2025-02-0621:231 reply >Violent crime is out of control.
Hilarious because it is in fact down: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-...
You've been propagandized, my friend
By rangestransform 2025-02-075:051 reply Your own source says that violent victimizations is up YoY, and crime reporting is down YoY
By user9999999999 2025-02-076:301 reply that is a dishonest interpretation of the data, the overall _trend_ is "U.S. violent and property crime rates have plunged since 1990s, regardless of data source"
By rangestransform 2025-02-0718:41 Why should crime ever go up, if other countries show that the floor of crime rate is even lower through policy and enforcement changes? It is always valid to blame the government for high crime relative to other nations with lower crime.
By olleromam91 2025-02-0621:01 The fact you can't recognize how propaganda can distort the reality of the issues you are listing above, makes one question if you actually understand what propaganda is, or have any interest in understanding reality.
I won't ever claim it's a simple picture, but there's enough peer-reviewed information out on the web to elaborate on your 3 rather unspecific talking points. We can hold your hand if it's too scary to google each of your issues above, I do have empathy that changing ones belief system is scary, but the alternative is delusion.
By umeshunni 2025-02-045:21 https://www.wsj.com/politics/democrats-have-a-new-leader-but...
Good read on that topic
By tim333 2025-02-0711:49 I was thinking of a theory that from evolutionary instinct people want to be king of their castle, secure against the enemy tribes and having a happy family - prince meets his princess has kids etc. The Democrat woke principles go against that rather - the rival tribes will take your job because you're the wrong skin color or a bunch crossed over the open border, your prince and princess stuff is outdated because male and female is replaced by gender fluidity and trans etc.
I don't have a strong opinion personally but I don't think it's a vote winner. The dems probably should have gone with a popular mainstream candidate like Shapiro say rather the the pro woke, most left voting in the senate Kamala.
By freitasm 2025-02-0321:09 > Where are the Democrats on all this? There is hardly any opposition. Are they not interrupting their enemy while he is making mistakes? That would be the only explanation.
You mean the same Democrats who were not given a majority on neither legislative houses, nor the Presidency?
Some people voted against their best interests. Consequences.
The democrats have effectively no power. They control neither the house, senate, or presidency, the courts have become more conservative, etc. They can only talk. The filibuster will prevent new laws, but that isn't much when the federal government acts according to the presidency, and the filibuster does not prevent government appointments
By PhunkyPhil 2025-02-0320:342 reply I guess Elon believes that long wait times for government services is because of an O(n^3) function somewhere...
> Where are the Democrats on all this? There is hardly any opposition
I think because this is so unprecedented the structures to oversee simply don't exist. The article mentions that congress has no mechanisms for oversight, and Elon is moving too quickly in this area for any checks to take place.
The courts are just now beginning to order injuctions and restraining orders, for the stuff that happened last week. The process seems to lag by 2-3 business days. So hopefully we'll be seeing a lot more this week.
How the administration responds to those is going to define how this constitutional crisis unfolds. And it is a constitutional crisis: congress unambiguously has the power of the purse, not the executive.
If Trump gets away with this, it isn't clear that Congress has any power at all.
By bagels 2025-02-048:05 The executive is just going to ignore any court orders.
It's utterly wrong to give Elon any benefit of the doubt in terms of his motives right now.
He's helping destroy the Federal government because doing so aligns with his interests as a billionaire.
By steve_adams_86 2025-02-048:50 I think they’re describing what the evidence presents, unfortunately
By computerthings 2025-02-045:30 You can't just prefix any random BS with "you seem to be". No, there is zero indication for that. You're just going "I know you are, but what is Elon?"
By bobbylarrybobby 2025-02-0321:06 The democrats were there on Election Day. They were shown the door.
They should try coming up with some popular policies and winning elections.
By sunshowers 2025-02-0323:021 reply Policies don't really determine elections in this age -- the only thing that determines them is people's brains being cooked.
By SpicyLemonZest 2025-02-045:031 reply Policies do a great deal to determine elections - American political parties are more polarized by policy now than they've ever been. It only seems otherwise because there's a lot of people who don't consider opposition to their policy objectives legitimate, and thus diagnose it as cooked-brain syndrome rather than attempting to understand and compromise.
By sunshowers 2025-02-045:421 reply People's policy preferences are downstream of how cooked their brains are. So it's not really policies that are determining it, it's the fact that their brains are cooked through constant exposure to bad things. If their brains are uncooked through constant exposure to good things, then their policy preferences will also change.
By SpicyLemonZest 2025-02-045:521 reply Now I'm not sure what we're talking about. If you postulate that brains can be "cooked" and "uncooked" in response to new information, doesn't "cooked" just mean "persuaded"? I definitely agree that my policy preferences would be more dominant if people spent more time ingesting the good arguments and good evidence that convinced me to hold them.
By sunshowers 2025-02-046:161 reply That's fair -- "cooked" does imply an increase in entropy that can't be reversed. I think it sadly is irreversible in some people, but many others can be brought back (you're already starting to see a backlash to Trump).
Being exposed to the arguments over and over, repeatedly, probably matters more than their quality. That's what I was going for with "cooked", since "persuaded" isn't quite the right word for it.
By gadders 2025-02-049:03 >>I think it sadly is irreversible in some people, but many others can be brought back (you're already starting to see a backlash to Trump).
Where are the people being brought back after voting for Biden or Harris?
No, they must talk about nothing but identity politics for the next 4 years, surely that is the best way to gain majorities in the Senate and House.
By hashishen 2025-02-0322:00 I would look to c-span for some accurate real time reactions from dems
https://www.c-span.org/program/news-conference/congressional...
By bb88 2025-02-0322:05 > Where are the Democrats in all of this?
I think there's a fear they'll end up on the Kash Patel FBI enemies list:
https://newrepublic.com/article/188946/kash-patel-fbi-enemie...
Democrats can oppose, but they don’t have any votes. All 3 branches of government are controlled by Republicans.
So, yeah. I guess we got the government we voted for? And since it’s a democracy, I suppose that means we have exactly the government we deserve?
Maybe it gets better later in the administration? That’s my hope anyway.
By arrosenberg 2025-02-0320:352 reply > I guess we got the government we voted for? And since it’s a democracy, I suppose that means we have exactly the government we deserve?
Well, we voted based on the only two options that were shoved down our throats by various groups of the wealthiest people on the planet. I don't personally think we deserve this, why would we? That said, if we don't do something, it won't get better.
we voted based on the only two options that were shoved down our throats by various groups of the wealthiest people on the planet
Well, we should have made a system that didn’t allow the wealthiest people on the planet to do that.
Not trying to be flip, I’m just trying to point out that it still all comes back to us in the end. We just have to hope for the best at this point. Buyer’s remorse is not gonna change the actions these people are likely to take.
I do agree with you when you say, something needs to be done. If these pres-vice pres pairings are the best the current system could come up with, then obviously there is a need to add some new aspects to the system that might encourage more competence in the candidates it produces.
By gameman144 2025-02-0321:20 > Well, we should have made a system that didn’t allow the wealthiest people on the planet to do that.
This feels correct-ish, but also pretty unrealistic. If you're born into a system where you have to choose between getting slapped and getting stabbed, then obviously the system shouldn't have been made that way -- that doesn't change the fact that it is that way, and you have to act within that system regardless of what ought to be the system instead.
By arrosenberg 2025-02-040:151 reply I agree to an extent. Most of us are either still young, or just getting our bearings and seeing the problems as adults in the last 10 or so years. I feel comfortable saying that, knowing the demographics of the site. Most of us had little-to-no ability to shape the current situation. Our window has just opened.
By spencerflem 2025-02-040:21 or closed forever
By spencerflem 2025-02-0321:191 reply We didn't make the system, some slavers hundreds of years ago did.
It seems like we won't have to worry about the current system much longer though
No, but enough people voted for the party that put the supreme court justices in place who ruled on citizens united over the years.
Voting isn't a one time thing, it has repercussions that can be felt decades later (see shortages of ATC because of the actions of Reagan in the 80's).
By spencerflem 2025-02-0321:46 I don't disagree, but I also don't see how that's a contradiction
We had two options, and we chose the greater evil. We absolutely deserve what's coming.
Increased prosperity, intelligent leadership and lawful order? I'll take it!
Ok, so you stalked my comment history so I stalked yours.
What about the Trump administration is "intelligent"? Trump lies about everything. Pointing out other politicians lie isn't a good comeback. Trump lacks all understanding of how tariffs work, he said he was going to "repeal and replace" Obamacare on "day 1" in 2016, only to say he has "concepts of a plan" in 2024, whatever the fuck that means. He rarely has "ideas", he just bitches about stuff and handwaves away everything when pressed for any details.
"Lawful order"? I don't know that that means. I would say that writing a lot of executive orders that go directly against the constitution is literally the opposite of "lawful order", but you're free to disagree.
By theonething 2025-02-049:161 reply Deporting all these violent illegals has been outstanding in my opinion. He's actually enforcing existing immigration laws.
By way of threats of tariffs, He's gotten Columbia, Mexico and Canada to enact policies in the interests of America.
America gets constantly screwed by other nations because we've allowed great trade imbalances and weak borders. Other nations have been happy to step back and let the US fund the UN, NATO, etc. Historically, we have the lowest tariffs and accept the most illegal immigrants in the world. Trump's changing that and I'm here for it.
Btw, I'm all for legal immigration. I'm one myself. My family escaped a communist country and has experienced life under a leader much more authoritarian that what the Left conjures up about the other side.
Deporting violent immigrants is fine. Biden enforced immigration laws too, and when there was a bipartisan immigration reform bill Trump asked the conservatives to block it.
Trying to revoke birthright citizenship is not “enforcing existing law”.
The concessions from Mexico and Canada were already planned from last administration. Moreover, now there are retaliatory tariffs coming from them.
How does a trade imbalance imply that we are “screwed”? Trump repeats that constantly but it doesn’t seem implied to me.
The stuff about NATO is a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
This is my biggest issue with Trump and his supporters, they treat everything as this incredibly reductive, black and white, “simple” issue.
By theonething 2025-02-0415:352 reply > Biden enforced immigration laws too,
No he did not. Biden's first acts were to repeal Trump's stringent immigration orders. After 3 and half years with another election looming and seeing the disaster that caused, all of the sudden, his administration wasn't so hot on open borders anymore. If he enforced immigration laws, we wouldn't have so many people who have illegally entered the country.
> Trying to revoke birthright citizenship is not “enforcing existing law”.
And I never claimed that. But I support an amendment towards that end.
> The concessions from Mexico and Canada were already planned from last administration.
Nope, the 10,000 troops Mexico just agreed to is on top of whatever other things they "promised" to do. And tariffs are off the table for now.
> Moreover, now there are retaliatory tariffs coming from them.
Nope, no tariffs have been enacted on either side at the moment.
> How does a trade imbalance imply that we are “screwed”?
US trade imbalance by year:
2020: $626 billion 2021: $858 billion 2022: $971 billion 2023: $1 trillion
We also have historically the lowest tariff rates in the world. Gee, I wonder if that's related. And then when we raise them to level the playing field, everyone bitches and whines.
> The stuff about NATO is a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
> This is my biggest issue with Trump and his supporters, they treat everything as this incredibly reductive, black and white, “simple” issue.
Pretty hand wavy there.
My issue with liberals is the lack of common sense, e.g. allowing biological men to destroy women in sports, not being willing to define what a woman is, getting mad at Trump for enforcing immigration laws (i.e. not letting people enter the country illegally and kicking out those who do)
By arrosenberg 2025-02-0417:391 reply I dunno, sure doesn't look like Biden let up on enforcement to me [1]. More likely is that Trump destablised the west and caused a net increase in illegal migration attempts. Since Congress refused to pass comprehensive immigration reform (to please Daddy, of course) they didn't have the tools or money needed to keep up.
[1] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistic...
> My issue with liberals is the lack of common sense, e.g. allowing biological men to destroy women in sports, not being willing to define what a woman is
I find this one so funny. Most liberals agree with you on this, but none of us will get on board with turning to fascism because an incredibly small portion of the population needs a civil rights issue addressed. That means we are forced to deal with the radical leftists who you are so angry about, because at least they aren't trying to overthrow the government. It would get settled much faster, and much more to your satisfaction, if a third of the country wasn't determined to act in bad faith and pretend those people don't exist. That's just as bizarre as the people who pretend that biological women and trans women are the same.
By theonething 2025-02-0423:131 reply > More likely is that Trump destablised the west and caused a net increase in illegal migration attempts.
nope, border encounters have dropped significantly after Trump took office.
To your last points, I won't address because you throw up unsubstantiated accusations that has become the Leftist party line. There's no discussion to be had here.
By arrosenberg 2025-02-051:252 reply > nope, border encounters have dropped significantly after Trump took office.
Ok propaganda. CBP doesn't have numbers for January posted, so you have no idea what is actually happening.
> To your last points, I won't address because you throw up unsubstantiated accusations that has become the Leftist party line. There's no discussion to be had here.
Oh please, by all means, substantiate your last point. Ya'll are going to get exposed the next four years for being such feckless dorks.
By theonething 2025-02-065:161 reply > Ok propaganda. CBP doesn't have numbers for January posted, so you have no idea what is actually happening.
wrong. From the border chief:
"In the past seven days, U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended 4,577 individuals attempting to enter the country illegally, a significant 55% decrease from the previous week’s 10,281 apprehensions. This trend indicates that our enhanced border security measures produce results. With more boots on the ground, we’re making a substantial impact to the security of our borders."
https://x.com/USBPChief/status/1884723200048693297
Yes, we'll see in four years. I look forward to it!
By arrosenberg 2025-02-071:501 reply They put more boots on the ground and apprehended fewer people? Sounds like Mexicans are doing their work for them again...
By theonething 2025-02-076:381 reply > Ok propaganda. CBP doesn't have numbers for January posted, so you have no idea what is actually happening.
the above is what you claimed and are undeniably wrong about.
You can't admit error because you don't operate in truth, just emotions. When confronted with truth, you twist it to fit your narrative as you're doing here.
And the quality of the words (or lack thereof) that you choose to use e.g. feckless, dork, anti-social losers, weird, loathe reflects on you and your character and state of mind more than anything else. Here they are categorized as ad hominem attacks and are not looked upon highly because the kind of people who use them lack substantial arguments and thus resort to these low effort personal attacks.
By arrosenberg 2025-02-0716:121 reply > You can't admit error because you don't operate in truth, just emotions.
I went to the CBP website and you went to twitter (which I don't use because I'm not a drone). Where on the emotion wheel is "CBP website"? https://medium.com/@mcgill_dr/emotions-and-feelings-charts-d...
You've spent the entire thread making unsubstantiated claims about trans people based on right wing propaganda. Practicing ad hominem attacks downthread is all you are good for, why would I waste actual effort on you?
By theonething 2025-02-095:081 reply > I went to the CBP website and you went to twitter
I went to Google and the twitter post from the official account of the CBP chief came up in search results. You claimed that reports from January from CBP weren't posted so I "have no idea what is actually happening.". You are wrong. Based on numbers from the CBP chief himself, I do have an idea of what is happening.
You also posited "More likely is that Trump destablised the west and caused a net increase in illegal migration attempts." when actually, based on the CBP numbers, the opposite has happened under Trump's leadership.
> You've spent the entire thread making unsubstantiated claims about trans people based on right wing propaganda
If you you actually go through this thread again, you'll see I mostly discussed tariffs and immigration. Out of this entire thread, I've written one phrase about the transgender issue:
> "allowing biological men to destroy women in sports, not being willing to define what a woman is"
And both of those claims have been well documented. They are facts, not propaganda. E.g. high school volleyball play Payton McNabb who sustained life long head injuries when a trans gender player spiked a ball in her face. E.g. at Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing she was asked if she could define what a woman is and her reply was "I can't --".
Again, you are not operating in truth.
> ad hominem attacks downthread is all you are good for, why would I waste actual effort on you?
You are part of the "smug left"[0]. It's no wonder Joe Klein says this about the Democratic party ""The intellectual corrosion is comprehensive; it is only matched by the self-righteous arrogance.". I'm not sure about the first part, I avoid calling people stupid, but the latter point about the arrogance of the left is spot on.
[0] https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberal...
By tombert 2025-02-102:33 I don't really want to comment on most of this post, but I want to address your final point:
> You are part of the "smug left"[0]. It's no wonder Joe Klein says this about the Democratic party ""The intellectual corrosion is comprehensive; it is only matched by the self-righteous arrogance.". I'm not sure about the first part, I avoid calling people stupid, but the latter point about the arrogance of the left is spot on.
Where the fuck did conservatives get the idea that they can say whatever they want and people will always be nice to them? The "smug left" stuff comes from the fact conservatives will hitch their wagon to so much stuff that is, in so far that this can be objective, very stupid.
For example, when I was a teenager, Conservatives were really trying to push for Creationism being pushed in schools. Creationism has no scientific basis, it has no business in a science classroom, it's based on an extremely stupid set of books, and yet this is the hill Conservatives wanted to die on.
Sometimes I decide to push back, even politely, but frankly it's exhausting. Creationists are just wrong, how many times should I be expected to have the same polite argument when they clearly have very little desire to actually learn anything?
This might come off as "smug", that's fine. I'm ok with being considered "smug". If you're really making your political decisions based on how polite some people are to you, then that's a lot more telling of you than me.
By olleromam91 2025-02-0621:082 reply I appreciate your willingness to engage. I've lost the willpower to believe I can do anything to lift the veil. They are too scared...imagine the sheer panic of your belief system being challenged, when you've already got an insecure and victim mindset that MAGA has exploited.
I almost want to just hold their hands as they tremble through widening their overton window.
By arrosenberg 2025-02-071:51 Don't try and lift the veil. Point out the veil is stupid looking and people who wear it are dorks. We don't need MAGA people to agree with me, we need the apathetic non-voters of this country to see them for the weird, anti-social losers that they are, and loathe them for it.
By theonething 2025-02-077:051 reply > I almost want to just hold their hands
lol... give me a break. No thanks!
Not panicking or trembling at all. Quite content actually.
By olleromam91 2025-02-174:22 You clearly did not understand my comment... Overton window still the same fit. shrug
> No he did not. Biden's first acts were to repeal Trump's stringent immigration orders. After 3 and half years with another election looming and seeing the disaster that caused, all of the sudden, his administration wasn't so hot on open borders anymore. If he enforced immigration laws, we wouldn't have so many people who have illegally entered the country.
Again, a bipartisan immigration reform was on its way to pass through congress until Trump told all the conservatives to kill it.
> And I never claimed that. But I support an amendment towards that end.
So you agree that an executive order ending birthright citizenship is bad?
> We also have historically the lowest tariff rates in the world. Gee, I wonder if that's related.
You still haven't demonstrated how having a trade imbalance implies that we're "being screwed". Trump keeps asserting that, but that doesn't seem obvious to me.
> Pretty hand wavy there.
Sure, I was writing this on my phone and I didn't have time to go into the details of the intricacies of NATO. You're free to look into the details of NATO yourself (you haven't), and if you do you'll likely understand why saying that the US is being screwed by paying more for NATO doesn't make sense.
> My issue with liberals is the lack of common sense,
That's because "common sense" doesn't actually mean anything. What do you think that "common sense" means? Your "gut feeling"?
"Common sense" is a phrase used by pseudo-intellectuals who want to reduce everything into pithy one-liners and ignore the fact that the world is actually pretty complicated, and your "common sense" is often wrong. It's not exclusive to conservatives, but it does seem to be a phrase that's extremely popular with them.
I reject the notion that immigration, NATO, biological gender, and pretty much any federal policy can be easily explained with "common sense". But what do I know, I'm just a liberal who doesn't have any I guess.
ETA:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o - US deportations under Biden surpass Trump's record
> Nope, the 10,000 troops Mexico just agreed to is on top of whatever other things they "promised" to do. And tariffs are off the table for now.
You're right, I looked it up, though what I should point out is that Biden was able to get Mexico to send troops without starting a trade war. It's not clear to me that this required the threat of a trade war.
By theonething 2025-02-065:492 reply > Again, a bipartisan immigration reform was on its way to pass through congress until Trump told all the conservatives to kill it.
That bill had concessions that loosened asylum restrictions and border closure measures. Why would would Republicans who want a secure border pass that when they could wait for Trump to become president and get everything they want in terms of a strong, secure border and tough laws against illegal immigrants?
Besides, even if it did pass, Biden has shown he is unwilling to enforce laws on illegal immigration.
> So you agree that an executive order ending birthright citizenship is bad?
If it turns out to be unconstitutional, then it's illegal and yes, therefor "bad". That's up to the courts to decide. Either way, I absolutely support legally repealing birthright citizenship.
> You still haven't demonstrated how having a trade imbalance implies that we're "being screwed"
Ok, looks like you're right on this, a trade imbalance is not necessarily bad for the US. It is bad for specific domestic industries that are affected by it though. I'd argue to a certain extant a nation has an obligation to protect its businesses in the context of international trade.
Here are some examples of common sense - Don't let biological men (humans with XY chromosome and a penis) into women's restrooms and locker rooms - Don't let biological men compete in women's sports because it's unfair and dangerous - Don't let violent thugs enter our country and if they do, kick them out.
By silverlake 2025-02-0716:58 The trade imbalance, like GDP, is a very crude economic measure. Do a search for “iPhone China trade imbalance” for more details. TL;DR is every iPhone is added to the trade deficit with China. However, China (Foxconn) just puts them together. The actual components come from all over the world. Then Apple sells them for 3x plus all the iCloud services. Samsung (Korea) makes more than Foxconn per iPhone.
By tombert 2025-02-0616:07 > Besides, even if it did pass, Biden has shown he is unwilling to enforce laws on illegal immigration.
Again, the Biden administration deported a comparable number of people per year as Trump did first term. You keep repeating this, and sources have been provided to you, so it's bordering on dishonesty at this point.
> If it turns out to be unconstitutional, then it's illegal and yes, therefor "bad". That's up to the courts to decide. Either way, I absolutely support legally repealing birthright citizenship.
You didn't answer my question. The 14th Amendment really doesn't leave much wiggle room on this, and it's certainly not enough wiggle room to overrule it with an executive order.
Even if you think birthright citizenship is bad, wouldn't you agree that it's a terrible precedent to have a the president be able to arbitrarily be able to decide which Constitutional amendments need to be followed? Wouldn't you be against Biden writing an executive order repealing the second amendment?
I don't really see how birthright citizenship is bad, you haven't demonstrated this, all you've done is fear-monger about immigrants.
> I'd argue to a certain extant a nation has an obligation to protect its businesses in the context of international trade.
Sure, but the tariffs that Trump is threatening would be potentially helping some local businesses at the expense of others. It's not a clear cut net-win. If we impose tariffs on Canada, China, Mexico, or the EU, they are likely to give us retaliatory tariffs and that might affect businesses that depend on imports from those countries.
At least that's what nearly every economist says. Maybe they don't have common sense.
> Here are some examples of common sense - Don't let biological men (humans with XY chromosome and a penis) into women's restrooms and locker rooms - Don't let biological men compete in women's sports because it's unfair and dangerous
Well I'm glad you have it figured it out. I think people relying on "common sense", a term that doesn't mean anything for reasons already described, is really, really stupid. I also think that fear-mongering about trans people is pretty telling.
> Don't let violent thugs enter our country and if they do, kick them out.
No one wants violent criminals in here. Biden did deport violent immigrants. No one here wants violent people in the country. You can keep bringing this up as if I didn't already agree that we should deport violent criminals, indicating that you either a) didn't actually read my responses, b) ignored my response, or c) are just lying. I'm inclined to pick C at this point.
By arunabha 2025-02-043:57 I guess time will tell if you're right. I hope you're right, because if not, we are in for very dark times.
By rtkwe 2025-02-0320:41 The filibuster in the Senate is powerful but it basically only blocks new laws from going in you can't really touch all the things Trump is doing via EO through Congressional obstruction the main avenue for blocking that is through the courts which ultimately have limited enforcement power.
By fennecbutt 2025-02-0918:01 Where it's going is largely irrelevant I suppose. The only reason the "doge" thing is going on is because Elon needed a way to insert himself into the government, and everybody else involved is too technically inept to realise (or care).
But the effects don't really matter because this is what the American public voted for. As an outsider who's read Daemon and Freedom when are you yanks gonna start the darknet already?
By rsoto2 2025-02-045:54 The democrats are busy trying to squeeze more AIPAC money for when they get massively primaried for backing a genocide. No, i'm not joking the house minority leader gave a speech on israel's success in gaza this week
By wesselbindt 2025-02-050:54 > Where are the Democrats on all this?
It's a big club...
By jacobjjacob 2025-02-0320:34 Maybe the strategy is to let it play out until there is enough of a case that the other branches can’t look away? Let Elon show himself out by inevitably crossing Trump and going the way of so many other advisors?
By energy123 2025-02-0322:41 > * Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) “Elon Musk, you may have illegally seized power over the financial payments systems of the Treasury, but you don't control the money of the American people. The US Congress does that under Article 1 of the Constitution ... we don't have a fourth branch of government called 'Elon Musk”
> * Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) “This is a constitutional crisis that we are in today. Let’s call it what it is.” -And- "Let's not pull any punches about why this is happening. Elon Musk makes billions off of his business with China. And China is cheering at this action today. There is no question that the billionaire class trying to take over our govt right now is doing it based on self-interest."
> * Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) "It is a matter for Congress to deal with, not an unelected billionaire oligarchy named Elon Musk. And Elon, if you want to run USAID, get nominated by Trump and go to the Senate and good luck in getting confirmed."
> * Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD) “We asked to enter the Aid building, really on behalf of the American people, but to talk to Aid employees, because … there’s been a gag order imposed on Aid employees. So we wanted to learn first-hand what’s happening. We were denied entry based on the order that they received from Elon Musk and Doge, which just goes to show that this was an illegal power grab by someone who contributed $267bn to the Trump effort in these elections.”
Estimated crowd of 100 protesters (reported). Other attendees and speeches made by Congressmen Beyer, Raskin, Connolly, Omar, Olzewski, Senator Van Hollen (seems like more maybe there not much coverage to confirm)
By FactolSarin 2025-02-0321:52 > Where are the Democrats on all this? There is hardly any opposition. Are they not interrupting their enemy while he is making mistakes? That would be the only explanation.
This is the kind of thing that someone who's on TikTok a lot says. The line being fed to people by the Chinese government to make the Democrats look bad as well. But the truth is the Democrats have no power. None. They can't do anything to stop this. Elizabeth Warren and AOC have just as much power as I do to stop Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
By Slava_Propanei 2025-02-056:02 [dead]
Democrats have bigger fish to fry and DOGE isn't a real department so it doesn't have a whole lot of authority to do things on its own. It can only advise the government so in the end, until an executive order is signed or some other action is taken, there's nothing to be done.
By affinepplan 2025-02-0321:052 reply I'm not sure what could possibly be a bigger fish right now. This is, quite literally, the dismantling of our entire government and its public services unfolding before our eyes.
By theonething 2025-02-049:26 > quite literally, the dismantling of our entire government
So the three branches of government are being dismantled? There won't be anymore Congress or Supreme Court?
It's really hard to take hysterical comments like this seriously.
By computerthings 2025-02-0322:421 reply https://www.crisesnotes.com/elon-musk-wants-to-get-operation...
> I try to keep emotion out of this newsletter. I have always tried to write Notes on the Crises in a calm, detached tone so that the information I highlight shines through. However, I must be honest with readers: I’m absolutely terrified. When I first read the Washington Post’s reporting I subsequently had a panic attack. I am not subject to those. I didn’t have one during the start of Covid-19 when I started writing about the full health, economic, and political consequences in March 2020 and knew before many, many people that millions would die. Nor at any time subsequently did I have one. Even as someone who has spent an unusual amount of time thinking about the Treasury’s internal payments system for a person who has never been in government, I find grasping the full implications of Elon Musk and his apparatchiks reaching into and trying to exert full control over the Treasury’s payment system mind-boggling.
> There is nothing more important on the entire planet than getting Elon Musk and DOGE out of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service and allowing career civil service employees to run the Treasury’s internal payments system without capricious and self-serving interference from billionaires and their allies. This effort must fail if we are to safeguard any semblance of due process and lawfulness in the executive branch. A vague anonymous promise that DOGE only has “read only” access is not enough. They need to be rooted out so that we can return to the slower moving, less dangerous, “five alarm fire” constitutional crisis we were having as of Friday morning.
By computerthings 2025-02-0323:391 reply What's the "win" here?
Same as you, I have no idea what’s going to happen. But something will, and it might be good. It might be bad as well, but at least the news will be interesting.
By computerthings 2025-02-041:081 reply Same as me? Speak for yourself, I don't care about what might or might not happen, to avoid honestly dealing with what is happening. That they started doing this on a Friday night should tell you they know what they're doing, that is, that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That it "might be bad".
> It might be bad as well, but at least the news will be interesting.
For those who read nothing about the first half of the 20th century, sure. For them this is surely "interesting". But since you wouldn't like your harm to be someone else's entertainment either, that's not an argument for anything.
time for obtuse edge lord is over, what is currently happening due to musk and trump is a serious threat to the stability of the US
He’s a threat to the unsupervised government institutions. If measured by the amount of money being stolen, the US government is the most corrupted in the world.
By computerthings 2025-02-0518:55 just making stuff up isn't "measuring" anything
By entropicdrifter 2025-02-0621:36 That is objectively untrue
By computerthings 2025-02-043:12 In context, that question would not about the present, but the future:
> It might be bad as well, but at least the news will be interesting.
Of course this doesn't mean "this might suck for me, but at least it will be interesting news for others". Why pretend otherwise?
> Approximately 20 members of Elon Musk’s staff have begun working within the Education Department. They have gained access to multiple sensitive internal systems, including a financial aid dataset containing the personal information of millions of students enrolled in the federal student aid program.
https://bsky.app/profile/altnps.bsky.social/post/3lhcyirig6k...
You don't receive such aid, correct? So why care. Just a bunch of dudes soaking up highly sensitive information to do whatever with.
Trump spoke plenty of times of his desire of purging all sorts of things including the "deep state". It's amazing to me that all it takes is to tack on some vague claims about "efficiency" from a guy who lies like a child about the dumbest things, for some Americans to say "but what IF it saves a bit of money?" and just ignore the whole "using a very flimsy excuse to purge political opposition" thing.
By 9283409232 2025-02-0320:591 reply You have no real handle on the scale of damage being done and DOGE is a real department as it was merged into the US Digital Service through executive order.
Who is running USDS, though? If it's now Musk, doesn't that require Senate confirmation?
By 9283409232 2025-02-040:57 You would think so but the legality of it all is very disputed.
By SpicyLemonZest 2025-02-045:10 No, USDS is an organization within the President's executive staff.
The constitutional requirement is that "Officers of the United States" need Senate confirmation unless Congress has provided otherwise. The precise contours of this have never been super well defined, but it doesn't sound like Musk is exercising sovereign power under his own authority, at least not yet.
By mrkeen 2025-02-0322:06 Democrats don't have a frypan.
